Deseret News | Historian says many 1800s plural marriages worked

Reader comments
Historian says many 1800s plural marriages worked

This article | 12:44 a.m. Oct. 2, 2009

made absolutely no sense, didn't go anywhere and didn't give any information. It was a rambling, wordy misuse of space.

I agree | 5:27 a.m. Oct. 2, 2009

The article was wordier than it needed to be. But boiling it down, there was some useful information if you're interested in how the women felt about polygamy. Basically, they were all over the map in how they felt about being in plural marriages. Some obviously weren't thrilled and prefered to remain independent of the other wives. But there were polygamous wives (my ancestors included) who thrived and had a great love for the other women in the picture. They depended on each other- rejoiced in each other's pregnancies and loved the others' children and were able to keep jealousy out of the relationships (at least until the third, younger and more beautiful wife came along. LOL)

There are many times I would love to have the constant companionship of another woman to help with the kids and share the housekeeping with. I think with a strong testimony that what we were doing was right, I'd be able to keep jealousy out of my heart, too,(maybe.) They were courageous women! And I think the men had to be, too, if they were doing this to humbly fulfill a commandment and not for selfish gratification.

re: This article | 7:04 a.m. Oct. 2, 2009

I agree! I was excited to read some great point of view on how plural marriage would have ever made since and all I run into was a bunch of rambling. Made about as much since as plural marriage did.

Comments continue below

Gordo | 7:37 a.m. Oct. 2, 2009

Some gay unions work to. It does not mean it is right. Geeze come on now!

Anonymous | 8:00 a.m. Oct. 2, 2009

Throughout history, moral relativism has been the rule. Abraham with multiple wives, Mormons accepting polygamy then going Victorian due to political and economic pressures, and so on and so forth. The reality is, there are no firm and concrete principles on these kinds of relationships that might not be changed from the status quo in either direction. The bottom line is society, in all its aspects, should not impose constraints on behavior between truly free and consenting adults and there is no compelling harm to others. Gay marriage won't change the already existing gay relationships, prohibiting polygamy won't stop the existing practices, and so forth.

All in the name of Jesus | 8:55 a.m. Oct. 2, 2009

Sure, polygamy worked great for the men. Multiple sex partners and domestic slaves to do their bid and calling. Wasn't that bad for wife #1 either, who got to live in the big house and play queen bee and lord it over the other wives. It was another reality for the plural wives who had to live out on the farm though in the huts with the mud floors. Just ask my great great grandmothers.

Glad it worked for them | 9:27 a.m. Oct. 2, 2009

My ancestors - on both sides of the family kept journals of how much the HATED polygamy. The wives had to be kept apart because they would fight incessently. They used to spy on each other. sabotage each other, and one even took the children and left the husband and raised the children alone rahter than be subjected to plural marriage.

Anonymous | 9:47 a.m. Oct. 2, 2009

"Worked" for whom?

No Justification | 9:50 a.m. Oct. 2, 2009

By an overwhelming majority, the "child brides" thing going on in Yemen "works" too! Most of those girls are "happy" with their lives because they have been indoctrinated to believe it is the way things are supposed to be. Many slaves in the South were also "happy". Victims of oppression who don't know any better are often "happy" with their status in life. But that doesn't justify anything!

Lets cover up the dirt | 10:28 a.m. Oct. 2, 2009

I too, had ancestors who wrote in diaries how sad and horrible polygamy was. I had 16 polygamist in my family. So please don't paint a false picture to the public here on polygamy. Of course, the men of the church will back it up. They always have.

Anonymous | 10:36 a.m. Oct. 2, 2009

Sure it worked. Yeah right.

Bill | 12:35 p.m. Oct. 2, 2009

Yes, pologamy worked when done in the Hands of the Lord. Also, only about 5% of the total brethern of the Church practiced polygamy. Not a large number. In fact, one had to be called to practice pologamy. It is an eternal practice that currently isn't practiced.

"Following the Church's action, degeral officials issued pardons to Latter-Day Sint men convicted of volating the antypolygamy laws and much of the persecution stopped. But, as President Woodruff explained: 'I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every man go there, HAD NOT the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to m. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write.' God, not the United States Congress, brought about the official discontinuance of plural marriage."

This disputes all other claims by those critics of the Church. Polgyamy was stopped by revelation and nothing else. Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon and others all practiced polgyamy. When the Lord directs, do it.

Anonymous | 12:46 p.m. Oct. 2, 2009

If the church ever brings back polygamy me and my wife and 6 kids are out of here. No way will I give my daughters to some old pervert.

John Pack Lambert | 1:03 p.m. Oct. 2, 2009

I think this article was a good report on the statements by Ms. Flake. The fact of the matter is her observations were largely built around those of Elizbeth Kane.
The peice itself admits that polygamy was not a perfect system for all. However, those who harp on their own ancestors failures in and dislikes of polygamy make a false assumption that a sample can prove the whole system. We could find lots of women who hated their marriage to a man as his only spouse, but that would not prove that there were also not a whole lot of people who benefited from the arrangement.
The point of Ms. Flake was to seek to understand the experienes of people over a century ago, not to pass judgement on them.
I long ago realized that discussions of polygamy are a no win situation, and so avoid them where I can. It is best to not try answering potential questions about it until they are actually asked, because virtually every answer is inadequate in some way, and every answer will rub some people the wrong way.

From your mouth to God's ear | 1:23 p.m. Oct. 2, 2009

Bill said, "When the Lord directs, do it."

Funny how the Lord can be made to say what men want him to say.

Bill | 1:40 p.m. Oct. 2, 2009

To Poster 12:46

So if the Church was to reinstate polgyamy where you would be called to be a polygamous you would leave. Sounds like one with a short minded action of the Gospel. You need to remember that Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon along with many others all practiced polygamy. They did so at the instructions of the Lord, not man. To be honest I don't see the Church reinstating it even if polygamy becomes legal because of the problems arising from the FLDS. However, when the Church practiced, it was at the direction of God, not man. It served it purpose then and currently would serve no purpose.

My earlier statement still stands. Also, any member practicing polygamy is an excommunicable offense. We don't practice it now and we don't apologize for it in the past.

LUSTY DEVILS | 1:49 p.m. Oct. 2, 2009

Hey you, JOHN PACK LAMBERT, You are a man are you not? You are just a chip-off the old block here with many problems and issues of your own to speak of. Polygamy is a mans deal, and NOT a woman's idea. I love how you desirous ?men? all support it. Including BILL on here who is always a regular supporter on these polygamy blogs and FLDS.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.