Comments on: The Many Marriages of Cyrus Wheelock

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 21:10:57 +0000

I’m thinking of the turmoil that England went through in the 1850s over their own peculiar marriage question, whether it should be lawful for a widower to marry his deceased wife’s sister, or a widow her deceased husband’s brother. The longstanding feeling had been that such marriages violated the law of God because they were forbidden in the Old Testament. There was enough public demand that such marriages were eventually legalized,but only over the moral and emotional and psychological objections of a huge share of the public. People felt it was incest, and they justified their objections by saying that even the possibility of such a future marriage would disrupt first marriages with the suspicion that your husband was considering your sister as a future wife, and claiming that the “natural” guardian of the children of a first marriage was the first wife’s sister, but if she could marry her former brother-in-law then she would put the interests of her own children over those of the children of her deceased sister, and on and on.

In other words, they had to redefine “marriage” and “in-law” and “incest” and similar concepts in order to accept those marriages … and yet we find absolutely nothing objectionable about such marriages today.

I see a lot of parallels to the moral and emotional and psychological considerations of polygamy.

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:29:58 +0000

Thank you for that, Ardis. As troublesome as the thought of plural marriage may be to our notions of loyalty and fidelity, I think we should hesitate before branding a whole generation of our forbears as disloyal and unchaste.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:50:40 +0000

Maybe not the concept, but at least the definition.

By: The Other Clark

The Other Clark — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:29:04 +0000

Well, Carvalho couldn’t figure out how Wheelock was able to be so successful courting either. The whole concept of courting (someone else)while married is repugnant. It implies throwing the whole concept of loyalty and chastity out the window.

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:21:02 +0000

All you have to do, IDIAT, is look at the losers who today succeed in gathering a whole quiverful of wives–those guys on the TV shows, the Warren Jeffs bunch, etc.–and you’ll be even more confused. How they land a single wife, to say nothing of a half-dozen, is a complete mystery!

By: IDIAT

IDIAT — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:32:42 +0000

I’m curious how some of the early polygamists were able to woo and cort a number of wives. I barely got one girl to marry me. I can hardly imagine several willing to put up with me. Were these guys of old stud muffins or were women desparate? Maybe men and women were more pragmatic back then, and romantic love as we know it wasn’t nearly as important. Still, when you read old journals and letters, it seems like the parties were genuinely in love.

By: Amy T

Amy T — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:49:51 +0000

Well, that’s definitely a good musical accompaniment for reading this story! : )

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:22:37 +0000

I was channeling Tommy Roe and speaking both in my individual capacity and on behalf of Cyrus who is not here to speak (or sing) for himself.

But maybe Cyrus avoided dizziness because his checkered marital history stretched out over 20 years, not just the 20 minutes I spent reading and pondering that history.

By: Amy T

Amy T — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:09:58 +0000

That’s funny, Mark, but if you feel that way, just think how Cyrus felt!

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:55:26 +0000

I’m so dizzy, my head is spinnin’
. . .
And it’s you, girl[s], makin’ it spin