Sustaind.org is sick. :( If you're a PHP programmer, can you help us upgrade Sustain'd and get it working again? If interested, email richard AT moregoodfoundation DOT org.
1
sustain!
Linked from LDS Church-owned WTOP Radio website, and syndicated from AP, this story documents the church-sanctioned, post-manifesto polygamy practiced by Mitt Romney's great-grandfather: "Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of the former Massachusetts governor now seeking to become the first Mormon president. Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy..."
comments
Methinks some smart religion writer could do a real number on Romney and the church with this little tidbit
Anyway... From my highly jaded view of church history, you could usually get away with just about anything if you were related to the right people in Utah, or Winter Quarters, Nauvoo, Jackson County or Kirkland.
It's a pity that there is an 'A ha!' moment to be had... but it's what happens when history gets whitewashed.
I'm aware of a lot of confusion regarding polygamy, there is only the faintest gloss from official sources. The official silence puts people in a bit of a bind. I think it'll do so for Mitt.
Of course, he could just get attacked by the crazy fundies and come off looking relatively sane...lol
What is the question here? Is Romney going to fight to legalize polygamy for his Grandparents? Is he going to load the supreme court with fundies? I don't think so.
GetReligion has been following him pretty closely, if anyone does a fair analysis of the media frenzy, it'll be them.
Understandbly, the church would rather present the whitewashed history rather than risk losing members to fundamentalist sects once people learn the truth, but how is undermining members' faith in general any worse?
I reply: As long as you don't try to run for Premier or something, I am sure you'll be fine. But if you attempt a career in high level politics, you may be doomed! ;)
First, the doctrine of polygamy has not been abolished. It's practice has been discontinued by revelation. But that discontinuation was done on the specific grounds of polygamy being impracticable under law; not because it suddenly it became heathen. In other words, I think that if it hadn't been because of the Republicans wanting to diminish states' range of influence (and finding in Utah a perfect target for a macho display), polygamy would have never been discontinued and it would exist today. I tend to think that, considering the differences between its implementation and the Islamic-like implementation practiced by some of the FLDS folk, it would have survived the whole civil rights waves.
Second, revelation was/is/will be subject to interpretation, and yes, not even prophets are perfect. Many apostles (including Pres. Joseph F. Smith) struggled greatly with the manifesto. I can understand it: polygamy was not only a commandment of God, it also had a lot to do with the sense of identity, a Zion stamp of approval. Also, considering the historicity of the manifesto and the legal situation involved (God would have not discontinued if it wasn't because of the new laws), I can't blame the brethren for wanting to leave the country and practice their religion *as God really intended it* elsewhere.
With that said, I don't think the receiving of the manifesto was just a front: I do think that some of the enforcement by the Church may have been. Further, I tend to think that God's revelation was also a front, devised to protect the saints and not to change doctrine. It may be possible that the practice of excomunicating those who still practiced polygamy may have been a necessity in order to protect the Saints rather and not to enforce the discontinuation of the practice. Could it have been like when He counseled Abraham to tell Pharaoh that his wife was his sister? Maybe, that's just my own theory.
About the history white-washing, I think not publicizing some of the events in our present time has a totally different connotation. It's not about hiding any truths or so, but rather it has to do with the current connotations polygamy has (thanks to our FLDS friends out there for that one). Polygamy has been used for child abuse and pretty much for human trafficking, and publicizing the idea that some polygamous marriages may have been perpetrated after the manifesto is hard to explain without the entire context (not many people are up for an important but seemingly apologetic history lesson after watching Big Love or looking up Warren Jeffs in wikipedia).
I just want to contest the idea that if you know the right people you can get away with anything. That simply shows a lack of sensibility and understanding of how things came to happen (try telling good honest people that they had to abandon their convictions and leave their families because some morons in the South wanted to win a macho arm-wrestle. Do it knowing that God feels the same way than you about it too).
Oh, and btw, Frank Cannon's book could be renamed "10 ways to be overzealous about your own convictions and lose your testimony". It was an interesting reading nevertheless.
1. After my mission I read as much as I could on authority and the human reaction to it. One of the conclusions I came to after reading about the Milgram experiments and the Stanford Prison Experiment was that 'I was told to' is a justification for human behavior that only works for children. This is where my problems with blind obedience come from, that idea is completely morally bankrupt. We have to be responsible for our own actions, and the defence of 'God told me to do it" is fundamentally inadequate. Giving up ones own sense of moral reasoning to what Joseph Smith called 'theocratic ethics' is one of the most heinous things that one can do, primarily because as DC 121 notes, the first thing we do when we get a little power is abuse the rights of our fellow people. It's a cheap excuse to pawn off responsibility for ones actions on a higher power, a leader, a fueher, or a book.
2. When I read the history of Mormon polygamy, the way it was implemented fits into the theories of New Religious Movements and their sexual behaviors. While the Levirate marriages of BY and other church leaders are perhaps defensible, the famous cases of church leaders complaining how the missionaries had married all the pretty European converts before the church hierarchy could get to them are not. The theological idea of 'seed' giving one a higher position in heaven is not. It is sexual exploitation using theology. Re 1, I could never support it in any form, primarily because it violates my own moral code. My wife and I have an agreement, neither one of us will ever participate in any marriage after the other dies that has connotations of polygamy, no 'time and eternity marriages' in the temple after this one.
3. I would love to see one of the church hierarchy on national TV being quizzed about this exact question, "Is polygamy still believed by members of the LDS church?" There is something of a disconnect between what I hear from church PR and what I learned in Seminary, Institute, Sunday School and through the Missionary Myth Line. Indeed, I could make a pretty good case against the classic LDS theology of God from recent statements by Gordon B. Hinckley. Connor just made a pretty good case to think that Communism is still the biggest threat facing the LDS church from Benson's statements. Using Kimball I can even turn the LDS church into an environmentalist organization. Using the Ensign I can even support Young Earth Creationists or Evolution, depending on the year. With the flexible LDS canon, just about anything can be elevated to scripture for the individuals purpose.
4. The old joke about Catholics and Mormons is far more correct than anyone knows. Neither one really believes the dogma surrounding infallibility or the lack thereof until it suits their fancy. In the 1970's we had 'When the prophet speaks... the debate is over" from a member of the First Presidency in the First Presidency message. (The context was in reference to the ERA) Yet, when ol BY decided to introduce the innovation of Adam as God, he either didn't mean what he said in the JoD or any one of another set of answers that FAIR/FARMS has come up with. In both the Left and Right camps, people pick and choose from church leaders statements in order to support their own position.
5. You mention that polygamy has different connotations today, resulting in the church 'not publicizing some of the events in our present time'. I agree that the context is complex. I agree that the connotations are negative. All contexts are, just take a look at any B 'based on a true story' and then try to find out what really happened. None the less, for a religion claiming to deliver all truth 'de-emphasis of history' reads a heck of a lot like 'concealing history' or 'lying about history'. In a missionary context this brings in a number of different ideas that deserve exploration, including the speed in which people are expected to convert, the culture of missionary work in the LDS church, the fear of 'scaring off' converts. None the less, being dishonest is being dishonest especially in a religion that puts honesty in such black and white terms. Neglecting to fully disclose known history that impacts on the doctrine of the church is lying. It may be lying by omission, but it's still lying. For instance, the complete neglect of Post-Manifesto history in church curriculum. Introducing black converts and others to our rather checkered past. Full disclosure of church finances (voluntary in US but required by law in most countries) Some of these are embarrassing... so what. Rational adults can and need to make their own decisions, when we 'de-emphasize' or hide facts.... well, Google , the DAMU and the Exmo/Nevermo contingent are pretty effective at providing them and their spin is considerably less complimentary.
6. Take a look at what happened to Matthias Cowley versus Joseph F. Smith. Cowley had direct orders from George Cannon(on permission from Woodruff) to perform plural marriages after the manifesto in Mexico. When Wilford Woodruff passed away Smith, as second Counselor continued to authorize those marriages against the wishes of Snow. Smith became church president. Cowley was dropped from the Quorum of the 12 for performing plural marriages.
6a. Look at who entered into plural marriage when it was semi-legal, illegal and officially banned by the church. The people who did so fell into two camps, those who were already of high status in the church and those who desired to achieve high status in the church. The first had multiples of wives, the second usually were limited to 2 or 3. It was people who knew and were related members of the church hierarchy. Polygamy conferred power, both theologically, psycologically and practically. Polygamy was very much centered around who you knew, who you were related to and what you desired to become; powerful in this life, and higher in the Celestial Kingdom in the afterlife.
6b. I have a great deal of sympathy for those men who broke the Manifesto in order to visit and live with their wives and children. I have no sympathy for those who took wives after it, especially young wives. The sexual component, the theological justification for power cannot be denied.
-I'm cross posting on my blog (AngryMormonLiberal), I'd love to continue the discussion there if this is getting a little long for this forum. I have trouble reading the text when it gets all scrunched and I have a little more flexibility on my blog... but it's just a preference...
I do not agree with the poster who said if you knew the right people you could get away with anything. In fact, there are journal accounts from the time after the manifesto, which indicate that while the church disavowed polygamy, it was the leadership's desire that righteous people follow their conscience in the matter, and do as they believed correct. And while some people had to be excommunicated to make a public show of being against polygamy, they never really lost favor with the church, only their formal membership.
But it was these people who provided the base for what would become today's fundamentalist sects. The connections are fascinating, and the history of the fundamentalist movement and the intrigues and cover-ups are like something out of a mystery novel. But this is reality, and the reality is that there are many who have a heritage in the doctrines of the Restoration, but who have never belonged to the LDS church, yet continue to practice Mormonism as they believe it ought to be. We ought not be fearful of this, we ought to afford these people the same liberty and rights that we wanted afforded to us when the LDS church was experiencing unbearable persecution and asking only for our basic human rights to be guaranteed.
The other thing that disturbs me about the manifesto is that if it was really what the church claims it to be, it seems to demonstrate a lack of faith in God to fight our battles. The truth is that polygamy was expressly outlawed by state statute in Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri, and yet these laws never prevented Joseph Smith from practicing plural marriage or teaching it privately to a select few.
There are no easy answers on this one, unfortunately. We should merely respect each others' rights to practice our religions in peace. The LDS church should try to help members understand the history a bit better, rather than leading members into disillusionment when they find that history is not exactly the way the church says it was. This does a great harm to church members. There are perfectly logical explanations, yet the church would rather pretend the easiest answer is the "whole truth", because to take any other course would risk exposing church members to "apostate" teachings they might not have known existed. And yet, I think that is a safer course than undermining these members' faith entirely, which happens when they begin to think "well, if they weren't entirely truthful about this subject, what else could they be fibbing about..."