Kathryn Daynes examines the rise and fall of plural marriage within Mormonism in the first two chapters of More Than One Wife. Chapter one traces the development of polygamy from the Mormon settlements in Kirtland and Nauvoo. Joseph Smith’s revelation about plural marriage was seen as a commandment from God and another initiative toward the “restitution of all things” (21). Daynes argues that the belief system of the Mormons was receptive to the practice of polygamy. Their belief that God’s will was revealed to Joseph Smith as his prophet and that practicing polygamy would lead to their salvation when the soon-coming Christ returned to Earth, made their acceptance of the controversial revelation much easier. She also describes the way Mormon communities were different from the other American households, which focused on the immediate family. When plural marriage was officially announced on August 12, 1843 of created a chain reaction of events that led to the murder of Joseph Smith and his brother and the exodus of the Mormon community to a settlement farther west.
Chapter two, Plural Marriage under Mormon Control, discusses the ways in which Mormons were repeatedly persecuted because of their marriage system. When the Mormons settled in Utah they tried to create an isolated community to govern themselves but the United States government issued a series of laws that tore down their legal system that supported their polygamist beliefs. Having their property taken away and being disfranchised by laws such as the Edmunds-Tucker Act led to the issue of the Manifesto, which halted plural marriage in the Mormon Church.
The Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 and the Official Declarations are revelations from God to his prophets that began and ended polygamy for the Mormons. Both issued harsh consequences if the decrees were not adhered to.
Questions:
The title of Chapter 2 Plural Marriage under Mormon Control implies that the Mormons had complete control of their belief at some point. Do you think that their history in America supports this?
In Doctrine & Covenants Section 132 there is a section that speaks directly to Emma Smith about her role as the wife of Joseph Smith and her acceptance of a plural marriage. Is it possible that Joseph added this to the initial revelation after Emma’s fierce rejection of the practice?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that it is very likely that the section of Doctrine and Covenants that directly addresses Emma was added by Smith. Emma reacted so violently to his polygamous marriages that Smith needed something very powerful to convince Emma. Emma not only burned the written revelation when Hyrum read it to her, she also (allegedly) pushed Eliza Snow, one of Smith's other women, down the stairs. Emma was very strong willed and Smith needed some very strong evidence to convince her - and what better authority to back him up that God himself. By having God directly appeal to Emma, Smith takes advantage of Emma's piety and her strong belief in God.
ReplyDeleteExtrapolating from what Maggie said concerning Emma’s rejection of plural marriage, I believe that the Church was never completely in control of Mormonism. Here you have the wife of the Prophet fiercely and outspokenly condemning a practice her husband has proposed. Although Emma eventually acquiesced (though, we might add briefly), this action doesn’t necessarily demonstrate control of the religion. Many followers condemned Emma for her impious behavior, but at the same time many empathized with her. Going back to Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery’s Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, we can see even some of Smith’s other wives sympathized with her: Emily Partridge wrote, “I have nothing in my heart towards her but pity. I know it was hard for Emma, and any woman to enter plural marriage in those days” (145). Emma was not the only woman with subversive thoughts, and when we consider that this was a religion with a greater female population, it would seem like the Church didn’t have as much control over its followers as it would hope.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that the Mormon Church did not possess complete control over their religious beliefs and practices. As discussed by Maggie Chu in her post, the Mormon Church failed to fully control Smith’s followers from dissenting from the established doctrines. These unorthodox Saints, through their rebellious acts, shaped the overall future of the religion. Emma Hale Smith certainly affected the Mormon Church by following and acting upon her own ideas concerning plural marriage. Indeed, as studied in class, due to their repulsion with plural marriage, Emma and her sons established a second branch of the LDS Church. She created a second, parallel belief system for Mormonism that completely denied the existence of plural marriage.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to not controlling or impeding the nonconformist church members, the Latter-day Saint Church also failed to prevent outside influences from shaping their belief system. The federal government, under pressure from the general society of the 19th century, coerced Mormons to give up polygamy through disfranchisement and harassment. Even in Utah, the Mormons could not fully control their own lives: the church’s autonomy was only a disguise. This idea, that outside influences continuously pressured the Mormon Church into conforming to accepted social norms, is, in my opinion, the central argument of Daynes’ second chapter.
I would argue that in addition to the Mormons’ belief in their prophet Joseph Smith that the living conditions of the Mormons made them more receptive to the idea of polygamy. Ruebe mentioned that Kathryn Daynes contrasted Mormon communities to “other American households” as a way of displaying how Mormons accepted plural marriages much more easily than the American middle class would have. However I believe that to Daynes the odd living arrangements that the Mormons endured not only allowed but also promoted the idea of plural marriage. The members of the Church of the Latter Day Saint were intertwined across bloodlines because they found themselves housing with multiple families. Plural marriage was just one of the ways the Mormons employed to strengthen these bonds. Mormons also adopted each other into their families. This became important for their trek to Utah.
ReplyDeleteI think it is very possible that Smith may have added the portion in Doctrine and Covenants that addresses Emma directly. Smith’s ultimate goal was to gain support from the women he loved the most was pure the way he went about achieving this goal was extremely mischievous. The fact that he may have used his immense power and taken advantage of his own wife’s faith in God to get what he wanted is shameful and makes one question how accurate Smith’s accounts of his other visions are. Like Maggie mentioned, Emma was not a pushover. She, like any other committed and loving wife, was not about to share her husband with other women. Emma loved and trusted her husband and the idea that Smith may have taken advantage of her is abominable.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comments above stating that Joseph Smith intentionally added a section to address his wife. I also think that this questions the legitimacy of the visions Smith had as he is molding his revelations to his needs and wants. But, on the other hand, it could be possible that God spoke to Smith about Emma’s opposition to the plural marriages. Although, either side could be upheld, I think that Smith did add this revelation to the section. This fact also shows that the Mormon Church didn’t have complete control of their belief. If the leader had to alter his revelation to persuade his own wife, then that directly proves that there was not complete control. But, I do believe that after Mormons spoke directly to Smith about plural marriage, it was much more under control.
ReplyDeleteAs the Mormon faith progressed from its single prophet into a large religious population, its doctrine expanded with the faith community. Joseph Smith continuously added to the religious doctrine of his church. Kathryn Daynes states that “the revelation about plural marriage is connected with Joseph Smith’s study of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament” (Daynes 20).
ReplyDeleteI believe that Joseph Smith most likely added the part about Emma, but this excerpt was based on his analysis of his true visions. He knew that Emma was an integral part of the church and that she was following her heart in opposing the doctrine of plural marriage. Joseph remains adamant that the Mormons must practice this controversial doctrine in order to preserve their fate after death. For this reason, plural marriage was accepted in the Mormon community despite Emma’s opposition.
The title of the second chapter from the Daynes reading implies not that Mormons had authority over the beliefs of their members regarding polygamy but that they had administrative control over a territory where the creation of new plural marriages was legally legitimate. However, this assertion proves to be fundamentally flawed. In theory, the remote Utah Territory provided the legal isolation needed for Mormons to institute publically sanctioned plural marriage. In practice, the Mormon desire for autonomy conflicted with the expression of Manifest Destiny. America was expanding her boarders and predominately Protestant morals westward. The United States government moved into Utah and neutered the authority of the Mormon judicial system, effectively destroying polygamy’s one shot at legitimacy.
ReplyDeleteMainstream contemporary America never would have allowed polygamy to exist in a sizeable community, not even one tucked away in remote corners of Utah. Although the First Amendment granted religious freedom to all, public opinion diverges on where the limit should be drawn. For example, if a religion demanded human sacrifice, then even if the followers found willing volunteers the government would intercept and the majority of the public would not cry foul. For 19th century America, polygamy fell under such a category. Should it? That’s a question up for debate. Religious autonomy was never comparable with jurisdictional autonomy. 19th century American government used civil laws to persecute Mormonism but never approached the question through doctrine. As for Emma’s involvement in the polygamy revelation, I believe that Joseph did not add that portion. I believe that Joseph had faith that he was the Prophet, which corresponds with many of his actions including his inner turmoil regarding polygamy. He believed that God sent him visions because he is His special servant, and it would not be surprising if his wife is included in God’s revelations as well. I think that Joseph believed that God sent him a revelation about polygamy, and that God had warned Emma to hold back her personal emotions.
ReplyDeleteI believe that over the course of history Mormons have never had complete control over their beliefs. Complete control implies that one has the free will to openly practice their beliefs and have no means of hiding it from the rest of society. Mormons have constantly had to modify or obscure their practices and beliefs in order to survive in society. Americans have never accepted the creed that Mormons adhere to. They have constantly been isolated to certain regions of the US as they have been persecuted further west over time. Their practice of polygamy was made illegal by the United States government as well.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea the Mormons have never had full control of their beliefs is a very interesting point due to the inherent nature of Mormonism, which is that it is entirely based around revelation and personal interactions with God. If we are to be skeptical and say that their revelations are most likely fabricated or untrue, then this would imply that they have complete control over their beliefs because they are the ones fabricating their revelations. However, most of our posts have asserted that Mormons have never had real control over their beliefs. This implies that we all believe either that their visions were legitimate or at least that they believed them to be so. I don't know that this changes anything, but it is just interesting to me to consider the fact that by accepting Mormons lack of control over their visions, we must agree to at least some legitimacy behind them.
ReplyDelete