Got Polygamy?

I just finished listening to Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama’s book about his search to discover and understand his roots. Obama wrote it just after finishing law school. It was especially personal because Obama reads it himself. I heard him tell the story. It felt like Obama shared a very private part of his life. One full of details most people don’t want to get out.

Much of the book revolves around Obama’s efforts to figure out how his absentee father informs who he is. His father was physically present in his life for only the first two years and then for a short time when he was ten. Obama reveals that on his father’s side it was common for men to have more than one wife. Obama’s father was a either a bigamist or polygamist depending on how you slice it. He had children by 4 women. The marriages over lapped each other with little regard for when one started and another stopped.

When Obama’s father left his birth place in Kenya to attend college in Hawaii, he left behind a pregnant wife and a child. In Hawaii, he met and married Obama’s mother. They had Barack and his sister. He parted with Barack’s mother two years later when he left for Boston to attend Harvard. While there, he entered into a relationship with a woman who would follow him to Kenya and bear him two children. His original Kenyan wife would later bear him two additional children. Going back a generation; Obama’s grandfather was a true polygamist. He had three wives at the same time.

What fascinated me was how Obama deals with all of this. His technique is simple -- he just lets it out. He plainly tells the story. His family’s polygamous practices are just part of how he came to be who he is. He doesn’t extol the practice, he doesn’t denigrate it, he just tells about it. He takes pride in and draws strength from his ancestors. He is not embarrassed or appalled by what they did, he doesn’t, as did Mitt Romney, sweep it away by saying it was “bizarre” or “awful.” He just tells you about it and how it has shaped him.

So my question to myself and others is this -- if you have polygamist ancestors, how does it inform your sense of self? Are you ashamed? Are you proud? Was it a mistake? Was it awful and bizarre? Are we just lucky that it’s a relic of the past? What is your take?

I for one am not the least bit ashamed. My mother’s mother and father grew up in large polygamous families. I am fascinated by their lives. Their religious practices are big part of who I am why I am where I am today. I am the product of a grand religious experiment. My great grandparents were so committed to their vision of the truth that engaged in a practice that made them criminals. They put their religion and their God before their country. I am in awe of their conviction. I feel that the Mormonism I am asked to live is a watered down version of theirs. And no, I don’t want to be a polygamist. I couldn’t do what they did not would I want to. But they were more committed to religious convictions that I am. I have it easy.

Daddy, I hate church

Henry, my seven year old, is getting increasingly vocal in his opposition to attending church. I have ignored this for the most part but am growing weary of the battle. Over the past few months I have let him stay home 3 or 4 times as a bit of an experiment. Last week, he strongly agitated to stay home but because my wife was not going to be home (she has not attended church regularly since she was a teen) I made him go. He was pretty upset and when we got there he chose not to get out the car. So I let him stay there while the girls and I went in. I thought he would calm down and join us in a few minutes. After about a half an hour I figured he wasn’t coming so I went out and got him. He still didn’t want to come in but I told him he had to and he reluctantly followed me in.

The funny thing is I think he sort of enjoys church even though he says he doesn’t. He is generally in a good mood after he attends. It’s just the getting there part that is a nightmare.

So I am not sure what to do. As I said, I have allowed him to stay home a few times lately so as not cause him to resent me for forcing him to go. But the result seems to be that he is just getting used to staying home. I want him to feel like going to church is his choice but perhaps he is too young to make that decision. Ideas?

The Bloggernacle and Institutional Change

Fifthgen emailed me this question. I thought the group might like to toss it around.

I sense in the bloggernacle some guarded optimism that we are entering an era of comparative openness with respect to Church History. The talk is about the new Church Historian, the Joseph Smith papers, etc. Am I misperceiving things? Is there a basis for the optimism? And if so, is it because the Church's hand is being forced by the internet/bloggernacle? In other words, all sorts of information is all going to be out there, so we (the Church and its members) might as well get in the fray. And, does Pres. Monson change anything?

Are Temples Secret?

Richard Bushman spoke at Weber University last Wednesday. Bushman is the author of Rough Stone Rolling, the well-received biography of Joseph Smith. He is an active Mormon who, because of his testimony and scholarly credentials, is able to be fairly candid about the Church without running afoul of the powers that be.

I haven’t seen the text of his speech but it was covered in the Deseret News’ just-rolled-out online portal – The Mormon Times. Reporter Holly Farmer writes:

“While some members will claim that Mormon temples are ‘sacred not secret,’ Bushman said that ‘temples are secret, plain and simple,’ noting that even members ‘don't speak to each other about it.' "

I was surprised to see Bushman put the smackdown on the widely held belief, but I applaud his pluck and common sense. I have heard it said many times that what goes on in the temple is not secret, it’s sacred. While I don’t agree with that statement, my sense is that most Mormons do. Bushman’s assertion was not well received by some Deseret News readers. One person, called Utah Valley Resident, said

“Just a comment on Dr Bushman's purported speech item, where he says, that what goes on in LDS temples is secret, is simply untrue, and he knows it. What goes on in LDS temples is sacred and the specifics of what transpires in them is not to be openly discussed by the qualified members who are admitted to these holy edifices outside of these precincts. They can be spoken of freely inside of these buildings in appropriate conversations. If what he meant by his comments that these matters cannot be spoken of freely outside of the temple, then he is correct. Any member who is unqualified to be granted admittance, or members of other faiths, who are also unqualified to enter dedicated temples are not privy to the ceremonies that occur inside of these sacred edifices. What occurs there in the sacred ceremonies inside temples are pure and simply sacred and are not to be discussed any other place in specific terms? (sic)”

I have two questions 1) is Bushman right – are temples secret and 2) why do many or perhaps most Mormons blanch when temples are described as secret?

Fast and testimony meeting

Today was fast and testimony meeting. The first few testimonies were about our new prophet, Thomas S. Monson. Then in succession, two girls around the age of 6 got up to bear their testimonies. The first testified that she knew that Gordon B. Hinckley was a true and living prophet of God. The second young girl testified that she knew that Heavenly Father had died on the cross for us. I don't quite know what to think about this. The girls were sincere and spoke to the best of their knowledge, but both the statements were incorrect. I wonder if bearing testimony is more about what we think rather than what actually is. I don't know.

Matters or Tatters?

The Salt Lake Tribune broke a story Saturday (2/23/08) about the Danzigs, a married couple who resigned from the Church over what they termed matters of conscience. I suggest you read the Tribune article and the official Church response. As both a participant and an observer of Mormonism, the story has grabbed my intense interest. Here are some thoughts about the participants.

The Reporter. Peggy Fletcher Stack is a casual friend of mine, a former employer (for about a month 23 years ago), and my wife has worked with her off and on for about 15 years at the Tribune. She is a lifelong active Mormon with a son on a mission. She is probably a better Mormon than I will ever be. She has a tricky job. She has to cover the Church in a manner that satisfies her employer, her readers and herself. She has to report objectively (as she sees it) but not push the envelope too far. I think she does a good job and I read her stories as much as if not more than anything else in the paper. The Church response to her article is strongly worded and is pointed directly at her. That must put her in a very uncomfortable spot.

The Church. I have been a member all my life and attend my ward regularly. I am deeply interested in how the Church operates as an institution. Sometimes you have to read between the lines to understand what is really happening within the Church because it has such a cohesive, unified appearance. I am a small little piece of the Mormon Church. I read about how the Church is run and watch the wheels roll, but I have almost no part in how and what it does as an institution. This is not that strange given the size of the Church and its hierarchical nature. An average Mormon can have a great deal of impact on in their local congregation in terms of service and community. But greater matters of policy and action are made at much higher levels. For a lay person like me, the article was a glimpse (albeit an incomplete one) into what goes on behind the scenes when someone runs afoul of the institution.

Although the Church is a top down institution, I believe the Church can benefit from the pleas of dissenting members. For example, take the extension of the Priesthood to every worth male. I believe that dissenting voices caused the hierarchy of the Church to think very hard about its denial of the priesthood to blacks. Those at the top of the Church then inquired of the Lord about the rightfulness of the position. The Lord eventually said told them that the ban could be lifted and the terrible policy was done away with. Without pressure from the bottom, the top may not have been prompted to seek guidance and the policy may have remained in place much longer.

The Danzigs. The Danzigs were returned missionaries, temple recommend holders, and active participants in their ward. They appear to have been (and may still be) sincere believers. They volunteered their time and efforts to play in the Orchestra on Temple Square. Mr. Danzig felt strongly that his position was one he could not in good conscience abandon. The situation snowballed until he and his wife felt that they had to resign from the Church or be excommunicated. Mr. Danzig followed the courage of his convictions.

Should Mr. Danzig have kept his concerns to himself? I don’t know. I admire his courage. I certainly don’t have his guts. Was he wrong to accuse the Church of engaging in “intellectual tyranny”? Yes. Those words were unnecessarily inflammatory. Had he used gentler language, he may have been able to make his point without picking a fight he was unlikely to win. Was standing by his conscience worth losing his membership? You tell me.

Not a Poke in the Eye

Last Saturday Ruby, Georgia and I went on a pawn shop and book store shopping adventure. I hoped to find a pair of binoculars for cheap (no luck). At Benchmark Books, I bought four books. 1) In Sacred Loneliness, the Plural Wives of Joseph Smith by Todd Compton 2) Four Zinas: A Story of Mothers and Daughters on the Mormon Frontier by Martha Sonntag Bradley and Mary Brown Firmage Woodward 3) Lowell L. Bennion: Teacher, Counselor, Humanitarian by Mary Lythgoe Bradford and 4) Working the Divine Miracle, The Life of Apostle Henry D. Moyle by Richard Poll.

I had toyed with getting the Compton book for a least a couple of years but was worried that it wouldn’t hold my interest. Plus it’s pricey -- $41. It's pretty distressing to pay that much for a book, get through 30 of 800 pages and then get bogged down because it’s not engaging or credible or it’s just too much work.

The Compton book is not a biography of Joseph Smith; it is 33 mini-biographies of the women he took as wives. I am not far into it, but one thing is certain, I didn’t waste my money. Compton thus far strikes me as extremely fair, even and candid. I have a hard time reading a book if I sense that it is babying me by holding back information. I say, give me the goods, be fair, acknowledge your biases and agenda, and let me draw my own conclusions.

This book certainly doesn’t hold back, but it is far from an exposé. Compton is not trying to poke anybody in the eye with this information. He aims to show us that these were real women who walked and talked and breathed like you and me, and he thinks their existence should be documented and understood. Compton’s writing is very readable and the subject matter, which I find inherently interesting, has not been smothered with dreary academic prose. It is an easy, smooth read. It’s also chock full of extraordinary bits of information. I mean, we all know Joseph Smith was a polygamist, but who can name more than one or two of his wives? Emma – OK, that’s easy; Eliza Snow, Fanny Alger, others? My knowledge stopped about there. I knew he had many wives but I was unclear on why or when or how he did it. How does someone get 33 women (several already married to other men) to agree to marry them? Talk about thinking (and acting) outside the box. It’s astonishing. To say that Joseph was an extraordinary person is an understatement.

This book details what we know (and importantly, what we don’t know) about each of the women. Some get 40 pages and some get two. Some we know a lot about and some remain a mystery. The youngest was 14 at the time of her marriage and the oldest was 54, give or take a year. Most were in their late teens, 20s or 30s. In 1843 alone, Joseph took about 15 wives. How is that even logistically possible?

Much of the evidence for these polygamous unions comes from the efforts of President Joseph F. Smith (Joseph Smith’s nephew), who documented the practice. He was in something of a debate with the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now the Community of Christ) as to whether Joseph actually practiced polygamy. He said yes – they said no. Several women swore out affidavits attesting to their marriages, which he then used to bolster his case that polygamy started with Joseph Smith rather than Brigham Young.

I will be posting more as I get farther into the book. As to the other three books, I hope to get to them sooner rather than later.