Comments on: Why It’s So Hard to Talk about Polygamy

By: Chocolate on my Cranium

Chocolate on my Cranium — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:16:07 +0000

No problem, Ardis. It only me what, 2 months?, to get it you to begin with.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:14:44 +0000

It didn’t. I’m so sorry, Chocolate, not to have at least acknowledged it. I have it but haven’t been able to spend any time with it. I apologize for not getting back to you sooner.

By: Chocolate on my Cranium

Chocolate on my Cranium — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:19:59 +0000

Ardis, I sent a draft to you over a week ago and am wondering if you ever got it. I suspect it got lost in cyber-space.

By: Velikiye Kniaz

Velikiye Kniaz — Mon, 14 May 2012 03:22:28 +0000

Dear Sister “Chocolate coated Cranium”,
I sincerely hope that you will accept Ardis’ offer and share some of those incredible accounts of plural marriage from your and your husband’s family. What an opportunity to go back in time and get just a glimpse of the mechanics and emotions involved in this ‘peculiar institution’. These sisters can speak to us with all the candor and frankness they had when they were actually living out their mortal lives in Zion.

I wouldn’t be a bit surprized to learn that they, (the plural wives), were happy to have their husband “out from under their feet” during those days that he spent away from her home and family. Such an attitude is hinted at in such historical novels as, “The Giant Joshua”, “Papa Married a Mormon”, and “The Kingdom or Nothing”.

Evidently, there also was a time when there were enough plural wives who approved and supported ‘the Principle’ that they could fill the Tabernacle and hold a rally against the federal government’s heavy handed coercion to force the Church to abandon the practice. I have never read anything that ever said that the sisters were forced to attend that rally. Indeed, there may be somewhere deep in the bowels of the Church History Library a copy of the petition most, (perhaps all), of them signed to the Congress and the Federal Government. That would make a fine list of families who might still have such relevant journals and histories.

There surely must be many first person accounts, (journals, letters, etc.) among the members of the Church which could, if organized, edited and published, make an exceptionally fine volume to give the world at large some lessons as to the living the Principle as it really operated in the lives of the pioneer Saints. They, (the non-members), probably still won’t like plural marriage, but they’ll have a far better understanding of it than they do now.
So Sister CCC, please start the process by sharing some of your family treasures with us!

By: Chocolate on my Cranium

Chocolate on my Cranium — Fri, 11 May 2012 20:47:53 +0000

I’ll see what I can come up with Ardis. {I may be a bit nervous too…what a topic!}

By: Stan

Stan — Fri, 11 May 2012 20:44:05 +0000

I am very appreciative that you are going to be doing a series such as this Ardis, and I think your introduction here was very proper and reverent to the topic.

Being a convert, my perspective of polygamy is actually very open. I remember praying about it before I was baptized and receiving a testimony in the same manner which came as my testimony of The Book of Mormon and of Joseph Smith. I knew it was of God. However, I was a young man and didn’t realize that it was such a taboo subject within the Church itself. Having read extensively about its origins and early practice within the Church, I am thankful that you are going to be teaching it with the proper integrity that it deserves Ardis. Many people will gain much from the things you will share.

By: Howard

Howard — Fri, 11 May 2012 18:27:18 +0000

I am a descendant of polygamy and grew up hearing about it and thinking of it as a normal marital option although no longer practiced. Assuming it was commanded of God, I have often pondered the reason for it and I have come to the conclusion that it was meant to teach compersion and along the way transcend jealously, selfishness, possessiveness and insecurity making us more Christlike. Critics often see this as a one sided double standard argument requiring women to become selfless but not men. But Joseph asked for other men’s wives and married already married women so plural marriage may have been headed toward both men and women having more than one spouse. I suspect there is little in the historical record about this but I would be interested in hearing about those who felt it taught selflessness. I’m looking forward to this series.

By: SteveR

SteveR — Fri, 11 May 2012 13:25:36 +0000

The following is a letter in the LDS Archives (MS 7403, Ira K. Hillman). I wonder if Ira’s current wife was interviewed. I wonder what questions were asked by Bishop Harker.

West Jordan Ward
February 1th 1857
President Brigham Young
Sir
Br Ira K Hillman wishes to have permission to take another wife. I can recommend him to be a faithfull and _ _ _ _ _ jlick Man in the kingdom of our god and punctual in paying Tithing
Yours Truly &c
Joseph Harker, Bishop

By: David Y.

David Y. — Fri, 11 May 2012 05:56:43 +0000

I look forward to this series.

By: Maurine Ward

Maurine Ward — Fri, 11 May 2012 05:54:58 +0000

Just last week my husband said he wished there was a Sunday School/Priesthood/RS lesson on polygamy so that our members could be taught some correct information. Most people still believe that only two or three percent of the men were in polygamy. During the Priesthood lesson last week on eternal marriage, the teacher quoted the scripture in D & C 132 on the “New and Everlasting Covenant.” Gary commented that originally, that meant plural marriage, and he got shot down. The teacher told him he was off base and didn’t know what he was talking about, and several other men told him that, too. It is like polygamy is a bad word and nobody wants to admit that the Church really practiced it.