The Acceptance of Plural Marriage
Hey Everyone.
Being new on this site and reviewing some of the posts, I just wanted to share a few thoughts and I welcome any feedback or response--from Fundy polygs and Christian polygs alike; or those seeking to enter into that principle of marriage.
I can appreciate what Anne Wilde and her counterparts are doing in SLC, and others, too, from Independent circles, but I believe it is an exercise in futility.
Why?
Because this system of marriage won't ever be accepted by the majority of our nation, especially with the apologists in the LDS Church trying to sweep the history beneath the proverbial rug. I remember my mother going through a tour of the Lion House in SLC, and when the guide stated (after going through several bedrooms) "And this is where Brigham Young's wife slept."
My mom asked where the plural wives slept and she was met with silence, a blank expression and blinking eyes.
The problem is that the Church is ashamed of her past and are desperately trying to adopt a marketing campaign, which distances herself from an inescapable history of plural marriage. Don't beleive me, just look back a few months ago. The Church was silent for so long with the raid in Texas, then after several weeks, the General Authorities issued a press release announcing a stark contrast between LDS and FLDS.
I have had people ask me, "So how many wives do YOU have," when I tell them I'm a Mormon.
Within the general public's mind, Mormonism and Plural Marriage are synonomous. Johnny and Jane Q. Public have never heard of the Manifesto of 1890 or the Declaration of 1904. They just see video clips when Short Creek or others make the news and think, "Hmmm. Mormons!"
Yeah, many of us polygs choose to quietly live our lives from the public eye, but no matter where we choose to live them, the Town Gossip always finds you: The second glances when you walk into a store; catching people with eyes wide whispering behind their hands; hearing the snickers as you pass; or even blatant remarks, which frankly isn't any of their damned business. People fishing for information to find closure to the rumor they heard--etc, etc.
I used to work for the State of Arizona--ADC--and once I picked up the State Representative, Jake Flake from an airport, who had flown in for a meeting at the prison. He introduced himself, and when I said I was a Jessop, his response was, "Oh. A Jessop!" Nodding in recognition.
You see: wherever you choose to go, the government will discover who you are and what you believe--whether it is from the friendly missionary visit, who glance at the fundy books on the shelf, to the Jehovah's Witnesses, who tract your home, and return to report the information that leads to the rumor mill; or whether it is a visit to the social security office to apply for a number for your home-born child. They'll find out. Not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist--just stating the facts. (Insert Sergeant Friday's voice-over)
I'm happy the way I live. I know the law enforcement community knows about me, and it doesn't bother me. I live the way I do because it is a commanded law to live. But I'm not going to try to lump myself as living an alternative lifestyle, akin to swinging or homosexuality. That's not what I'm about. I don't support adultery. I don't support GLAD--nor do I wish to be associated with their causes.
Plural marriage is so diametrically opposed to homosexuality, it's absurd to try to place the two under a mutual category. It's like trying to put the Amish into the same classification as bikers, because most bikers are bearded. It's an extreme.
Society won't ever accept us because we believe in large families. My small family pales in comparison with others I have known. It simply isn't cool to have such a large family these days, but I think it's awesome.
Once someone asked me such a profound and deeply stupid question, "Do you ever forget the names of your kids?"
I answered, "Are you stoned?" In a richly patronizing voice.
I'm sure every parent with more than one child has, at stressful times, gone down the line with names until they reach the name of the child they are getting after--I've done it--but to forget the name of your own kid? C'mon, now!
I look forward to opening up my kids' yearbooks and seeing row after row of pictures--either of my own or those related to me--on each page!
But as to the efforts trying to legalize plural marriage...I think pot will become legal first.
Good luck and cheers.



Ok Now I know who GAAZ is,
Ok, now I know who GAAZ is, good to see ya here buddy, oh by the way you write a great article
Billy
Monosexuality
"Plural marriage is so diametrically opposed to homosexuality, it's absurd to try to place the two under a mutual category. It's like trying to put the Amish into the same classification as bikers, because most bikers are bearded. It's an extreme."
Thank you, too true, too true.
Rome was one of the first to support monogamy AND homosexuality, those two concepts are directly linked historically. Both of them because of Mysogyny (leaving unwanted girl babies).
But now people saw WE are against women... People have crossed the line to not being able to count, there are as a matter of fact more women in polygynous relationships then men.
Homosexuality and mandatory monogamy are linked, thank you very much. We are not they.
Monogamy and Homosexuality
Good point, Tlaloc.
In the middle ages, heterosexual sins were punished more severely than homosexual sins. From the Church's point of view, while homosexuality is certainly sinful, it is sterile--so no children result, who require our love, no family. So it doesn't represent the same threat to love of God. Family has always been the Church's biggest enemy--Read about it in Ferdinand Mount's The Subversive Family. And a polygamous family is a famiy too!
Monosexuality
I appreciate your feedback, Tlaloc.
Society deems polygamist men as oppressors, dictators and tyrants, and I have been so appreciative of Wilde/Watson/Batchelor for their book. I was acquainted with the first two, when I lived in the SLC area years ago. It is refreshing have a modern reference of the testimonies of women living the Principle--Not to say Women of Mormondom isn't a good work; it is--but it's kinda out-dated.
I'm trying to get my wives to join this site to express their own views, regarding plural marriage, but one of them chooses to live in anonymity--knowing her persona on this site will conceal her identity. But that's okay. It is her choice.
And that was one of the things I wanted to lead to: CHOICE. Sisters in this marriage system have their choice in all things. Free-agency, and pity the man who tries to rob anyone of that! The Lord has commanded that we do not exercise unrighteous dominion, and compulsion, etc., and left us with a warning, that men who do these things lose their Priesthood (D&C 121).
Thanks again for your thoughts.
a coupe of thoughts
I liked your article. I think mormons should not refere to their scripture if they are not going to own all of it, including what they took out or changed ideas on.
...Thoughts
Thanks for your comment, Realtoramy.
One of the modern beliefs that our brothers and sisters in the "mainstream Mormon" Church perpetuate about plural marriage is, "We'll live it in the Millennium." That is the excuse around D&C Section 132. Over the years, the Church has taken a firm position that Celestial Marriage really translates to the marriage of a man to one wife, within the Temple by a legal administrator. And if isn't within a Temple, it isn't valid for Eternity.
But they blatantly ignore the teachings of dead prophets--so many regarding this subject by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc., but what comes to my mind right now are two quotes:
1) The emphatic teachings of Joseph F. Smith (pre-Manifesto) that Celestial Marriage equates to plural marriage, and,
2) John Taylor stating that it isn't the place that solemnizes a marriage, but the authority of the Priesthood (Case-in-point: The Red Brick Store, owned by Brother Joseph--Endowments, marriages, ordinances perparatory for higher blessings.)
Marriages performed by Legal Administrators can occur anyplace, anywhere.
But the sad thing is, Mormons today, within holy places we covenant, while kneeling at the altar, that we will live every law, rite and ordinance.
So what's going to happen if we fall short of that promise? The time is right now--not in the Millennium--to enter into that Principle and fulfill our obligations to God.
My honest opinion? I think that by the time the Millennium actually arrives, it will be too late.
Thanks again, sister, and good luck with the market