Polygamy in context

April 21, 2008 By

mormon polygamyLast week we discussed the need for reporters to distinguish between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In the comments, reader Michael Nielsen — a Mormon social psychologist — pointed us toward an op-ed he wrote for the Salt Lake Tribune that argued for improved information about the relationship of polygamy to the LDS church:

To deny polygamy’s importance to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Mormonism is, well, to be in denial. Many Latter-day Saints prefer to avoid polygamy or to think that it has no bearing on the present, but this is pointless if we are to consider what other people think of the church. Evidence of this is found in the results of a recent Vanderbilt study on bias against Mitt Romney and Mormons. Negative opinions in the study shifted markedly when people were provided “clear, accurate information” about polygamy and other stereotypes regarding Mormonism.

From my reading of newspaper letters, article comments and blogs, it seems that defenders of the church too often provide information that is clear but inaccurate or incomplete. For example, it strikes an observer as disingenuous when told “the LDS Church has nothing to do with polygamy,” as I’ve read in the comments to several newspaper articles in recent days. Clear? Yes. Accurate? Not so much.

As if on cue, Peggy Fletcher Stack, ace religion reporter for the Tribune, filed a comprehensive look at the relationship of polygamy to the LDS church. Headlined “Modern-day Mormons disavow polygamy,” the article explains exactly how the LDS came to practice polygamy, how it was discontinued, and what the current view is. She explains, for her non-Mormon readers, that Mormons do not live in isolated compounds, arrange marriages, dress in clothing from the 19th century or wear, as a rule, unusual hairstyles.

Stack explains how LDS founder Joseph Smith was inspired by Old Testament figures who had multiple wives and recorded that he received a revelation in 1843 defining “a new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also the plurality of wives”:

After Smith’s death in 1844, Mormon pioneers took plural marriage to their Great Basin kingdom in Utah. There it flourished, first in secret and then openly, until the U.S. government stripped polygamists of their right to vote, hold office or own property. It eventually disincorporated the LDS Church itself and refused to allow Utah to become a state. . . .

Though the LDS Church had disavowed polygamy, it is still enshrined in Mormon scripture (Doctrine & Covenants 132) and some believe it will one day be re-established, if not on Earth, at least in heaven. In his quasi-official 1966 book Mormon Doctrine, which remains in print, the late LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie wrote that “the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming and the ushering in of the millennium.”

And by policy, men can be “sealed” for eternity in LDS temple rites to more than one wife, though women are permitted only a single sealing.

Three of the church’s current apostles, for example, were widowed and remarried. Each will have two wives in the eternities.

Stack explains how Mormons see the polygamy of the past differently than they view its contemporary use.

One of the things she gets into is the economic motivation for the polygamous Mormon communities at their height in the 1860s. According to a scholar she interviews, many of the second, third or otherwise plural wives were widowed, divorced, or had no other men to take care of them. That’s a major difference from the FLDS where boys are routinely kicked out to keep up the supply of plural wives. Religion & Ethics‘ Lucky Severson had a fantastic news piece about this back in November, but I haven’t seen much coverage now that the FLDS are back in the news. Slate was one notable exception.

Stories have also failed to explain the general economics of the FLDS. How do the families support themselves? Do they support themselves? Do taxpayers support the plural wives? What are the religious teachings related to the economics, particularly as they relate to self-sufficiency?

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Academia, Godbeat, Journalism, People, Religion, Sex, Social Issues, World Religions
  • David

    There must have been “lost boys” as a result of 19th century Mormon polygamy. Their history is certainly forgotten by mainstream Mormon history, just like the history of the 21st century “lost boys” will be forgotten by the FLDS.

  • Dave

    I was once told, a long time ago, that plural Mormon wives in the 19th century were shipped over from Europe as mail-order brides, coming from places that had a dearth of young men due to wars. This is raw assertion; I cannot back it up with any evidence.

  • susan

    Oh yes, remember the story of Bishop Snow and the castrated young man whose sweetheart he purloined, supported by Brigham Young. yes indeed, there were lost boys – Henry Jacobs?

  • Rathje

    Dave, I don’t think there was much “mail-order” stuff going on.

    But the LDS Church did proselyte heavily in places like Britain, Wales, and Scandinavia (I’ve seen the genealogical records to back that up). There was a lot of immigration to Utah and polygamous marriages were reportedly common among that set. Whether that was because more of the immigrants were single women, or because they’d lost men along the way (I’m doubtful), I don’t know.

    Another, unreported aspect of polygamous Utah is that Utah had radically liberal divorce laws for the time period and one of the highest divorce rates in the nation. Neither were women necessarily regarded as “damaged goods” for being divorcees (as they were just about everywhere else in the United States). Brigham Young set the example himself by marrying more than a couple divorcees and widows.

    I won’t witewash it. Old time polygamy had its share of problems, but today’s prejudices don’t really allow a clear picture of what was really going on in that culture. Yes, the system appeared abusive to Eastern newspapers. Yet visitors to Utah were often shocked to find how not-abused the Mormon women seemed. To this day, feminist scholars just scratch their heads in puzzlement over prominent polygamous women. They expect beaten and downtrodden sex-slaves, but instead find some of the most powerful, strong-willed, and progressive-minded female voices in American history. I’m serious. Read about Eliza Roxy Snow sometime (once wife of Joseph Smith, and then Brigham Young). The lady was formidable to say the least. Utah would have been among the first states to allow women to vote – except the Republican Party was afraid of all those polygamous women voting in ways they didn’t want, and shut it down.

    Polygamy was never a black and white thing in historic Utah. It was never as cut-and-dried as the current Texas stuff. It had its positives and its negatives. And it’s pretty well-established that there was never more than a small fraction of the population practicing it at any one point.

    As for modern practice, it is well-established that a Mormon man can have active and binding temple marriages to two women where one wife has died and he has remarried. At this point, it’s still unconfirmed, but I’ve heard a lot of personal anecdotes of people saying a Mormon woman can now do the same (which was not always true). I would wager that eventually this will be the case. A careful read of Doctrine and Covenants 132 seems to suggest both polygyny and polyandry are acceptable marriage arrangements to some degree or other.

    Personally, I don’t see what the fuss is over that. I think the idea that a grieving husband or wife can retain his lost loved one throughout the eternities is one of the truly beautiful doctrines of Mormonism. I see zero need to apologize for that and wish my Church would quit tip-toeing around the issue.

    And by the way, I’ll be happy to start apologizing for my ancestors’ practice of polygamy, when people in Akron, Ohio are willing to apologize for their ancestors’ practice of monogamy.

    The bad-history mojo cuts both ways.

  • Scott G.

    I suppose this polygamy issue wouldn’t be too bad if everything were above board and according to the law. Consenting adults? I don’t like the sexual focus but then again look at our country. According to our society today I can sleep around with as many women as I want but marry two and I have problems with finger pointing. That’s hypocracy.

  • Floppy Dog

    Good job Rathje. I appreciate thoughtful, fact-based and provocative comments. Not the usual whitewashing of ancient old-wives tales (pardon the pun).

    I also like Scott G’s comment. If our society approves of homosexuals (clearly not accepted in the bible), but disapproves of polygamy (clearly accepted in the bible), what does that say about us? Not only is it a double standard, but it goes completely against the Lord’s word.

    I will go on record to say that any polygamist group that encourages underage girls to marry and bare children is not appropriate. They are not of the age of consent. That makes their spiritual husbands guilty of a felony. This is not about religion, it is about treating young women with respect. The facts appear to be surfacing that the FLDS folks are flat our wrong.

  • Lora Horn

    I lived in southern Utah and went to college in Cedar City. There were polygamist women there who were going to college, and were as of yet unmarried. Most of them were home economics majors.

    There was a documentary on polygamy on cable this year, I wish I could remember the title of it. It wasn’t necessarily on Warren Jeff’s group, but it was mostly from groups that have broken off from the Mormons. One group portrayed a modern family in every way (modern clothes, modern hair styles, modern makeup, gated community with nice housing, but the whole community was polygamist), In that family –one wife stayed home and was primarily domestic, one taught, and the other worked as well. Another family –a more traditional looking family, but reportedly happy. Another story was about a group outside of Salt Lake where the prophet took a young woman from another man and married her himself. She was the daughter of one of his primary wives. She refused to sleep with him, and the man would tell her what he would do with other wives. The woman and her mother then decided to escape. The documentary also included the story of a woman who escaped from Colorado City when she was young, and currently smuggles girls out of the polygamist communities. She puts her phone number up all around the region wherever she can.

    I wish I could remember the title of it.

    I also remember a story a few years ago about a Utah man arrested for polygamy. They supported their family by having 3 out of the 4 wives get welfare for the children, since they weren’t legally married.

  • http://www.saintjonah.org Fr. John Whiteford

    I rather doubt that this particular group has been involved in the welfare system in Texas. In my secular job I worked 13 years in the Food Stamp, Medicaid, and TANF programs, and have worked almost 3 years now in the Child Support program. If they were receiving Medicaid or TANF, they would have had to provide birth certificates or some similar document that established the age and relationship of the child to the mother — if they had done this, DNA would not be as big of an issue right now. Also, if they were in the those programs, they would have been referred to the child support program, in which case we would have been going after the fathers to make them support the kids — which again, would make DNA much less of an issue at this point because we would have either gotten an acknowledgment of paternity from the father and mother (which is an affidavit), or we would have done DNA testing.

    The Food Stamp program is a little loosing on these issues, but at the very least, we would have had the full names, social security numbers, and dates of birth of each child, and who they were living with. Press reports have indicated that birth records were not kept, to cover up the age of the girls. They also indicate that the people in that compound have refused to give their full names to people.

    I too am curious as to how they have been supporting themselves, but from what I know about the welfare system in Texas, and what the press has said about how they have tried to obscure the ages, names, and relationships of the children… I rather doubt that they would have wanted any attention or involvement from the state of Texas in their lives.

  • Rathje

    Lora, I think that would have been Tom Green.

    He was convicted of welfare fraud (and I think tax evasion too) in Utah a few years back.

    I agree with Scott that a major part of why the social model has gone so horribly wrong for the FLDS is the secrecy instinct in the group. The whole society is premised on hiding from and lying to the outside society. This creates a certain isolated and paranoid mindset that can be easily abused and seems to have been in this case. It’s hard to say what polygamy would look like today if it had not been driven underground and isolated.

  • http://www.catholicradiointernational.com Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz

    One aspect of this that is not covered is how regular LDS people are still very attached to polygamy because many are descendants of polygamists. We lived in Salt Lake for a year and, soon after moving there, my wife was talking with a couple of neighbor women who were LDS (of course, in monogamous marriages). Somehow the topic turned to polygamy and my wife expressed her disdain for it. The two women with whom she spoke immediately got their hackles up and defended it because somewhere — not too far away in their backgrounds — they had polygamous ancestors.

    So not only is it a matter of it being a part of Doctrines and Covenants, it’s also a matter of family pride. Given how dependent Mormons are on genealogy for their ritual of baptism of the dead, this is no small matter for them.

  • http://www.vagantepriest.blogspot.com/ FrGregACCA

    I too doubt that the FLDS waa utilizing any form of government welfare. They seem to have plenty of money flowing in from the support of certain members who own companies which have pretty lucrative contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense. (of course, one could argue that this is a form of corporate welfare, but y’all know what I mean.)

    Re: polygyny in the Bible. This seems to be a case of progressive relevation, wherein the people of God are, at one point, allowed polygyny but then, over time, are directed back to the original ideal of monogamy. It is ironic that Smith and the early Mormons, embracing the idea of continual, and therefore presumably progressive, relevation, would also justify polygyny, at least partially, on the basis of the practice being allowed at a very early stage of salvation history.

  • Rathje

    Thomas, that sounds about right. It is for me too.

    Greg, in many ways Mormonism is a return to the Old Testament style of religion – something abandoned by mainline Christianity. I’m somewhat acquainted with the Christian idea of the Bible being a progressing revelation of God’s will to man – incomplete at the start, but growing in perfection.

    That is a completely different concept than the Mormon idea of current and continuing revelation. We have never operated from the presumption of the Bible being a sufficient source of God’s will.

  • aj arizona

    Whose Context? Peggy Fletcher Stack and the Tribune.
    The Biggest anti-Moromn rag and hag there is, and has been for 138 years.

    They won’t stop using the term fundamentalist Mormon, even though the AP style guide states it is to be used only when speaking of members of the LDS Church.

    Their deception and desire to blend and confuse these groups is apparrent. They have an agenda, and simply refuse to explain these very basic differences.

    Anyone who has a basic understanding of history knows full well that not only are these polygamous sects antithetical to Mormons of today but they bear virtually no resemblance to the practices of 19th century polygamy.

    These modern polygamists break virtually every Article of Faith as written by Joseph Smith himself.

    Point by point they are nowhere near what even the 19th century Mormons practiced. Socially, Religiously, Civically, Personally, or in any way are they Mormons.

    The Lutherans, Anglicans and Presbyterians etc.. are not Fundamental Catohlics, They are Protestants. These poly/sects, are likewise Protestants. They are not under a Mormon umbrella, nor are they entitled to steal the identity, lineage, and succession of Mormons.

    I can start a Fundamental Home Depot or Fundamental Burger King, but it does not make it the real deal.

    Even the schism of the 11th century in the Christian Church, (when there was a dispute as to who the next Pope would be), it did not produce, Catholics 1 and Catholics 1a.

    No, you have, ever since then, had the Greek Orthodox and the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Two seperate and distinct organizations. Just as you had later with the Protestant Reformation. They all carved out their own identiy and did not ride piggy back on the Original Faith.

    The LDS Church has every right in the world to protect it’s brand and name, despite the efforts of Peggy Sue Stack and the Tribune Rag.

    As stated, the media knows this, but would rather stick it to and smear contemporary Mormons, out of spite. They are crafty, but fooling nobody.

    It’s inappropriate and wrong, but why should they start caring about that now.

    ajarizona

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    AJ Arizona,

    Your ad hominem attack against Fletcher Stack is also incorrect — she is a Mormon herself.

  • http://www.vagantepriest.blogspot.com/ FrGregACCA

    Uh, the schism in the llth century had nothing to do with who the next Pope would be. It concerned the status, power, and authority of the Papacy, regardless of who the actual holder of the office is.

    Also, a better analogy to this situation would be between the RCC and its “traditionalist” splinters, such as the SSPX and the various groups which are openly sede vacantist.

  • Michael

    I try generally to avoid drive-by commenting on blogs I don’t normally participate in, but I wanted to thank AJArizona for demonstrating one of the points in my Salt Lake Tribune piece. Sigh.

    Again, thanks for the interesting discussion. I have been impressed with the threads I’ve read here, and will add a link to it from my blog.

  • http://ontheotherfoot.blogspot.com Joel

    So not only is it a matter of it being a part of Doctrines and Covenants, it’s also a matter of family pride. Given how dependent Mormons are on genealogy for their ritual of baptism of the dead, this is no small matter for them.

    Thomas, I think another aspect of that same thing is the trend we’re seeing all across the Christian spectrum (or pseudo-Christian, if you insist) toward traditionalism. Look at the younger Catholics clamoring for Latin Masses, or the younger Protestants championing more rigid doctrinal positions. I expect there’s probably a similar trend among younger Mormons to see the current church as too compromising.

    I have a friend who used to be part of the Allred Group, and I gathered from him that that motivation was a significant one even back in the 80s. The way things are today, I’ll bet it’s even more so.

  • http://www.chasclifton.com Chas S. Clifton

    I wonder how local LDS church members are reacting. Would they offer foster care to these kids? (Would the authorities let them do so?) Or are they putting all the distance that they can between themselves and the FLDS?

  • Rathje

    Chas,

    In a bizzare development, Judge Walthon suggested that the local LDS Church “supervise” the group prayer sessions of the mothers and children to make sure the mothers aren’t “coaching” their kids on what to say in testimony. This was in response to one of the mothers’ lawyers claiming that the mothers felt that CPS agents were snooping on their private religious observances.

    I guess the judge felt that maybe “fellow Mormons” would be more acceptable. The local LDS leader says he’s utterly mystified by this odd development and will contact Salt Lake for further instructions. I’ll pretty-much guarantee the answer from Salt Lake is going to be “keep out of it.” And rightly so. I’m not sure what the judge was thinking. I imagine she’s under a terrible amount of stress.

  • Tracy Hall Jr

    Robert Kirby, my favorite Mormon humorist, who somehow gets to work for the same “rag” as Peggy Fletcher, recently hacked out a great piece that professes to explain all the varieties of LDS:

    *LDS: Latter-day Saints, or your “regular” Mormons.
    * RLDS: Reorganized Mormons, or Mormons who didn’t go to Utah with Brigham Young when the church was run out of Illinois. [th: now known as "The Community of Christ"]
    * FLDS: Fundamentalist LDS. The cloistered men and oddly coiffed women you’re seeing on television down in Texas these days.
    * GLDS: Gay Mormons. Not only are some Mormons gay, some gays want to be Mormon. They just don’t like the marginalizing that comes with the territory.
    * XLDS: Ex-Mormons, many of whom still congregate and talk about church, sometimes way more than they did when they were Mormons.
    * BLDS: Black or African-American LDS. Not all Mormons are white. There are also LLDS (Latino Mormons), NALDS (Native American Mormons), OLDS (Oriental Mormons), and, eventually, MLDS (Martian Mormons).
    * JLDS: Jack Mormons, or Mormons who don’t practice the faith, most noticeably Mormons who smoke and drink.
    * NLDS: Nazi Mormons, the overly rigid, lock-step, black-and-white wearers and thinkers who give the rest of the world a Mormon stereotype to work with.
    * ALDS: Atheist Mormons, or Mormons who still maintain a social connection with the church but don’t believe in God or gold books.
    * *LDS: Mormons who figure it’s none of your business what kind of Mormon they are.

    hthalljr’gmail’com

  • Denise Hamilton

    Modern polygamy started in 1929
    By Elaine Jarvik and Carrie Moore
    Deseret News
    April 19, 2008

    Modern roots of polygamy in Utah and the United States can be traced back to 1929 to men said to have been “set apart” by Lorin Woolley, who in turn claims to have been secretly authorized by early LDS Church President John Taylor to perform plural marriages. Mormon fundamentalists believe that Taylor had a revelation in 1886 to continue the practice of plural marriage, a contention that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says is wrong.

    Woolley then undertook naming a “Council of Friends,” also known as the “Council of Seven,” that included Leslie Broadbent, John Y. Barlow, Joseph Musser, Charles Zitting and Louis Kelsch. When he succeeded Woolley and Broadbent in seniority, Barlow ordained several other men, including Rulon Jeffs, father of Warren Jeffs.

    Barlow started the United Order of Short Creek on the isolated Arizona-Utah border in 1940. Not long after Barlow died in 1949, his successor, Joseph Musser, was treated by a Salt Lake polygamist naturopath, Rulon Allred, for a series of debilitating strokes. When Musser ordained Allred “first elder,” this angered other council members, who then split from the group.

    When Musser died, his line went to Allred, who organized under the name Apostolic United Brethren (AUB), headquartered in the south end of Salt Lake County. Allred was later shot to death by order of rival polygamist leader Ervil LeBaron, head of the Church of the Lamb of God, also in Salt Lake County. The question of who has “priesthood authority” is still the main difference among today’s various fundamentalist groups.

    Other splinter groups include Centennial Park, begun by Marion Hammon and Alma Timpson in 1984, the Nielsen-Naylor group (a splinter from Centennial Park), and Winston Blackmore’s group in Bountiful, British Columbia, Canada.

    Still other polygamous leaders, such as Jim Harmston of the True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days, in Manti, say they receive their authority by “direct manifestation.”

    “We don’t even mention them in the same breath,” says Anne Wilde of the pro-polygamy coalition Principle Voices. “They’re so radical.”

    There are also many “independent” polygamists who follow no leader at all. Some independents, as well as the Davis County Cooperative Society (known informally as the Kingston group), the AUB, Centennial Park and Nielsen-Naylor, are now members of Principle Voices.

  • FW Ken

    The last few days have been all-pope-all-the-time for me, so forgive me if I repeat a point that, actually bears repeating… if I am repeating it.

    The story in the FLDS business here in Texas needs desperately to tease out the legitimate religious angles from the cultic. The isolation and focus on the leader are classic cult behaviors. The sexual exploitation of younger girls by older men is not uncommon in cults (I’m thinking Moses David and the Children of God back in the 70s), although, to be fair, polygamy and arranged marraiges between younger and older is not uncommon in history, for some of the reasons noted in comments above. But that’s the sort of thing that really needs telling, because it possible to interpret the current event as the government swooping in and stealing the children of people who’s religion and way of life based on that religion aren’t socially acceptable. Look, I’m a Catholic and don’t approve of polygamy. But I amreally uncomfortable with government force being applied to people who believe differently then me. Again, sorting out the cult aspects from the authentically religious choices people make is crucial to protecting the legitimate interests of the kids without force feeding them standard American culture. Is it a kid’s inalienable right to shop at the mall 20 hours a week and watch TV another 40? Moreover, I drive through the homeless part of town and there are people with their kids. I’m told some of them prostitute them and I know they use them to increase their income through TNAF and WIC.

    Bottom line: I’ve worked for the great State of Texas most the past 40 years in one capacity or another and somehow I don’t trust us to really help these children through our child welfare system. Call me cynical, but this is a job for journalism, but, unfortunately, a journalism that “gets religion” (what a concept!) and doesn’t settle for the sensational and sentimental.