FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Difference between revisions of "Is polygamy sexist?"
SpencerMarsh (talk | contribs) (→Question: Is polygamy sexist?) |
m |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{Main Page}} |
| − | + | {{Navigation:Plural marriage}} | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | =Is polygamy sexist?= | |
| + | ==Introduction to Question== | ||
| + | Some worry that the historical practice of polygamy as well as contemporary theology about polygamy is sexist. | ||
| − | <blockquote>In the case of a new plural wife who would have remained unmarried if monogamy was exclusively practiced, her | + | At least a few fear that Church doctrine implies or teaches that a spouse might have to practice plural marriage in the eternities without the approval or desire of their first spouse. This stance has been most passionately argued by Latter-day Saint poet Carol Lynn Pearson in her book ''The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy: Haunting the Hearts and Heaven of Mormon Women and Men''.<ref>Carol Lynn Pearson, ''The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy: Haunting the Hearts and Heaven of Mormon Women and Men'' (Walnut Creek, CA: Pivot Point Books, 2016). For reviews that expose the weaknesses of Pearson’s position and approach, see Allen Wyatt, "[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/scary-ghost-stories-in-the-light-of-day/ Scary Ghost Stories in the Light of Day]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 23 (2017): 137–160; Brian C. Hales, "[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/opportunity-lost/ Opportunity Lost]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 23 (2017): 91–109. Pearson's work is sadly dated in many issues of history—she has not kept up on this field, and in some matters it seems her education in them stopped in the 1970s. Her work is useful because it ''diagnoses'' a problem that some women do struggle with. The difficulty is that Pearson's proposed remedy—the repudiation of plural marriage as a doctrine—is unwise and would be unhelpful. Instead, worries about doctrine can be alleviated by learning true doctrine and more accurate history coupled with revelation, rather than insisting that doctrine must be changed because we don't like the conclusions that some people have mistakenly drawn.</ref> |
| + | |||
| + | The observation that grounds this assertion is that polygamy fragments women's emotional and sexual opportunities as a wife. As Brian C. Hales has argued: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <blockquote>In the case of a new plural wife who would have remained unmarried if monogamy was exclusively practiced, her "emotional and sexual opportunities as a wife" are increased from zero to some fraction depending on how many other wives the man has. However, the other wives’ opportunities are diminished as a result of the new plural matrimony.<ref>Hales, "Opportunity Lost," 97n4. Hales has repeatedly made this assertion in his publications. See another instance in Brian C. Hales and Laura H. Hales, "[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lending-Clarity-to-Confusion.pdf Lending Clarity to Confusion: A Response to Kirk Van Allen’s 'D&C 132: A Revelation of Men, Not God']," ''FairMormon Papers and Reviews'' 1 (2015): 4</ref></blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <!-- I've blocked this part off for now. I've had considerable experience helping people troubled by plural marriage, and I worry that this approach will confirm their worst feels and not be helpful. I think we should emphasize instead that | ||
| + | |||
| + | a) polygamy is not required for exaltation | ||
| + | b) no one will be forced into any sealing arrangement which they cannot wholeheartedly embrace | ||
| + | c) leaders have indicated that they do not believe plural marriage will ever be again required of the Church in mortality. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I worry that things like "a woman might even be being selfish if they need to raise up seed quickly and she doesn't go along." | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think this misunderstands the nature of "raising up seed." There are at least two issues: | ||
| + | |||
| + | 1) In Jacob 2, it may well be that this is a Levirate marriage scenario, so not really applicatble save in rare cases. | ||
| + | 2) Polygamy has not shown itself to be a more efficient way of producing a lot more children. Yes, more women enter the birthing pool than would otherwise, but they also had less time with husbands, which tended to reduce the number of children. As far as I know, there is no evidence that polygamy dramatically increased the Saints' numbers beyond where they would have been. | ||
| + | |||
| + | What it DID do, however, was create a very dedicated _core_ of men, women, and their families who were utterly dedicated and showed themselves to be so. Much of the Church's leadership continues to grow out of those family. So there was seed to the Lord, but it's a question more of calibre and quality, not quantity. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ~~~~~ G Smith | ||
Do these assertions hold? This article will present at least one argument that they do not. | Do these assertions hold? This article will present at least one argument that they do not. | ||
| − | + | ==Response to Question== | |
| − | + | ===A Definition of Sexism=== | |
It will be most important to define our terms carefully and rigorously so as to have a good discussion of polygamy. FAIR has authored an article on sexism that may be illuminating for readers and which we encourage people to look at before proceeding. | It will be most important to define our terms carefully and rigorously so as to have a good discussion of polygamy. FAIR has authored an article on sexism that may be illuminating for readers and which we encourage people to look at before proceeding. | ||
| − | {{Main| | + | {{Main|What is sexism?}} |
| − | + | ===The Higher Moral?=== | |
With that definition of sexism in mind, let's revisit a key scripture about plural marriage that we may have heard before in Jacob 2:27-30: | With that definition of sexism in mind, let's revisit a key scripture about plural marriage that we may have heard before in Jacob 2:27-30: | ||
| Line 31: | Line 51: | ||
Given that the higher moral law would be to practice polygamy, it would ''actually'' be immoral of women to be reluctant to practice it here on earth. Given DS4, the logic of Pearson and Hales is flipped on its head. It's not immoral to practice polygamy. It's immoral ''not'' to practice polygamy when commanded by God for a higher moral purpose. God declared that there were other purposes for polygamy. These are outlined in this article: | Given that the higher moral law would be to practice polygamy, it would ''actually'' be immoral of women to be reluctant to practice it here on earth. Given DS4, the logic of Pearson and Hales is flipped on its head. It's not immoral to practice polygamy. It's immoral ''not'' to practice polygamy when commanded by God for a higher moral purpose. God declared that there were other purposes for polygamy. These are outlined in this article: | ||
| − | {{Main| | + | {{Main|What do the scriptures say about plural marriage?}} |
| − | The question now would be to rigorously defend raising up a covenant seed and other scripturally grounded principles outlined in that article as a higher moral good that supersedes women's wants, needs, and even merits because it's simply not possible to give women the same access to sexual opportunities given this moral good that prior Latter-day Saints were following. We should trust that God esteems all his children equally and wouldn't give a commandment that superseded their wants, needs, and/or merits unless he had good moral and/or practical reason to. | + | The question now would be to rigorously defend raising up a covenant seed and other scripturally grounded principles outlined in that article as a higher moral good that supersedes women's wants, needs, and even merits because it's simply not possible to give women the same access to sexual opportunities given this moral good that prior Latter-day Saints were following. We actually do know that polygamy increased the relative population of Utah broadly and the amount of Latter-day Saints born into the covenant so we have a start.<ref>"Polygamy and Population Growth," Mormonr, accessed June 8, 2022, https://mormonr.org/qnas/fX8STb/polygamy_and_population_growth.</ref> We should trust that God esteems all his children equally and wouldn't give a commandment that superseded their wants, needs, and/or merits unless he had good moral and/or practical reason to. God reminds us that "[his] thoughts are not [our] thoughts, neither are [our] ways [his] ways...For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are [his] ways higher than [our] ways, and [his] thoughts than [our] thoughts."<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/isa/55.8,9?lang=eng&clang=eng#p8,9 Isaiah 55:8-9]</ref> |
| − | + | ===But What About Eternal Polygamy?=== | |
Now, the article on sexism and the analysis presented here really only applies to the practice of mortal polygamy or the type of polygamy practiced by the Church from the early 1800s to the very early 1900s. It does not, however, apply as neatly to the question of polygamy in the eternities. Brian Hales, however, offered perspective on this with which the author agrees and believes that others can agree with too. | Now, the article on sexism and the analysis presented here really only applies to the practice of mortal polygamy or the type of polygamy practiced by the Church from the early 1800s to the very early 1900s. It does not, however, apply as neatly to the question of polygamy in the eternities. Brian Hales, however, offered perspective on this with which the author agrees and believes that others can agree with too. | ||
| Line 42: | Line 62: | ||
*We know almost nothing about eternal marriage and even less about eternal plural marriage. | *We know almost nothing about eternal marriage and even less about eternal plural marriage. | ||
*Worrying about eternal polygamy is worrying about the unknown. | *Worrying about eternal polygamy is worrying about the unknown. | ||
| − | *Exalted beings are promised a | + | *Exalted beings are promised a "fulness of joy" (D&C 93:33) and "eternal happiness" (Alma 3:26). [The author would add Romans 8:28 to this reading list] |
*Worthy Latter-day Saints can trust these promises. [see, for instance 1 Nephi 9:6] | *Worthy Latter-day Saints can trust these promises. [see, for instance 1 Nephi 9:6] | ||
| − | And there may be more to think about. President Joseph F. Smith taught in 1915: | + | And there may be more to think about. President Joseph F. Smith taught in 1915: "If a man and woman should be joined together who are incompatible to each other it would be a mercy to them to be separated that they might have a chance to find other spirits that will be congenial to them. We may bind on earth and it will be bound in Heaven, and loose on earth and it will be loosed in Heaven."<ref>James R. Clark, ''Messages of the First Presidency'', 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965), 4:330–31.</ref> This counsel seems to apply to a couple in the early stages of marriage. It also acknowledges that righteous men and women have agency even after a sealing has been performed. In other words: |
| − | *D&C 132:19–20 promises exaltation and godhood to a monogamous couple who live worthily and are sealed by the priesthood authority of the | + | *D&C 132:19–20 promises exaltation and godhood to a monogamous couple who live worthily and are sealed by the priesthood authority of the "one" man holding the sealing keys (vv. 7, 18). |
*The power to seal is also the power to loosen. | *The power to seal is also the power to loosen. | ||
| − | *Lucy Walker remembered Joseph Smith’s teaching: | + | *Lucy Walker remembered Joseph Smith’s teaching: "A woman would have her choice, this was a privilege that could not be denied her."<ref>Lucy Walker Kimball, "A Brief Biographical Sketch of the Life and Labors of Lucy Walker Kimball Smith," CHL; quoted in Lyman Omer Littlefield, ''Reminiscences of Latter-day Saints: Giving an Account of Much Individual Suffering Endured for Religious Conscience'' (Logan, UT: Utah Journal Co., 1888), 46. The context was plural marriage, but the principle would seem to equally apply to monogamy.</ref> |
*We are taught that vicarious (and living) ordinances will continue during the millennium when communication between worthy mortals and righteous spirits will be enhanced. | *We are taught that vicarious (and living) ordinances will continue during the millennium when communication between worthy mortals and righteous spirits will be enhanced. | ||
*Agency and righteousness will allow all worthy beings to be sealed in joyful eternal marriages that they have chosen, even if some loosening and resealing ordinances need to be performed. | *Agency and righteousness will allow all worthy beings to be sealed in joyful eternal marriages that they have chosen, even if some loosening and resealing ordinances need to be performed. | ||
| Line 57: | Line 77: | ||
Thus, whatever the eternities look like, we can be assured that we'll see an outcome that we all desire. That would necessarily mean that sexism has not interfered and God is "no respecter of persons".<ref>[https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/acts/10.33,34?lang=eng&clang=eng Acts 10:34]</ref> | Thus, whatever the eternities look like, we can be assured that we'll see an outcome that we all desire. That would necessarily mean that sexism has not interfered and God is "no respecter of persons".<ref>[https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/acts/10.33,34?lang=eng&clang=eng Acts 10:34]</ref> | ||
| − | + | ==Conclusion== | |
It is the author's hope that this article will serve as a important insight into the moral thinking of men and women everywhere whether in or out of the Church and/or applying knowledge of sexism to the Church and its doctrine, practice, and history. Further philosophical work on this question may reveal additional, important insights into it. | It is the author's hope that this article will serve as a important insight into the moral thinking of men and women everywhere whether in or out of the Church and/or applying knowledge of sexism to the Church and its doctrine, practice, and history. Further philosophical work on this question may reveal additional, important insights into it. | ||
| − | < | + | --> |
| − | + | ||
| + | <!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
| + | [[Category:Questions]] | ||
Latest revision as of 23:17, 17 May 2024
Is polygamy sexist?
Introduction to Question
Some worry that the historical practice of polygamy as well as contemporary theology about polygamy is sexist.
At least a few fear that Church doctrine implies or teaches that a spouse might have to practice plural marriage in the eternities without the approval or desire of their first spouse. This stance has been most passionately argued by Latter-day Saint poet Carol Lynn Pearson in her book The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy: Haunting the Hearts and Heaven of Mormon Women and Men.[1]
The observation that grounds this assertion is that polygamy fragments women's emotional and sexual opportunities as a wife. As Brian C. Hales has argued:
In the case of a new plural wife who would have remained unmarried if monogamy was exclusively practiced, her "emotional and sexual opportunities as a wife" are increased from zero to some fraction depending on how many other wives the man has. However, the other wives’ opportunities are diminished as a result of the new plural matrimony.[2]
- ↑ Carol Lynn Pearson, The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy: Haunting the Hearts and Heaven of Mormon Women and Men (Walnut Creek, CA: Pivot Point Books, 2016). For reviews that expose the weaknesses of Pearson’s position and approach, see Allen Wyatt, "Scary Ghost Stories in the Light of Day," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 23 (2017): 137–160; Brian C. Hales, "Opportunity Lost," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 23 (2017): 91–109. Pearson's work is sadly dated in many issues of history—she has not kept up on this field, and in some matters it seems her education in them stopped in the 1970s. Her work is useful because it diagnoses a problem that some women do struggle with. The difficulty is that Pearson's proposed remedy—the repudiation of plural marriage as a doctrine—is unwise and would be unhelpful. Instead, worries about doctrine can be alleviated by learning true doctrine and more accurate history coupled with revelation, rather than insisting that doctrine must be changed because we don't like the conclusions that some people have mistakenly drawn.
- ↑ Hales, "Opportunity Lost," 97n4. Hales has repeatedly made this assertion in his publications. See another instance in Brian C. Hales and Laura H. Hales, "Lending Clarity to Confusion: A Response to Kirk Van Allen’s 'D&C 132: A Revelation of Men, Not God'," FairMormon Papers and Reviews 1 (2015): 4