Talk:Plural marriage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] An interesting quote

:While I hold no particularly strong opinion one way or the other on polygamy, and wish "Jenny" all the best, I must confess that at the present time and for the foreseeable future, I do not have 2 wives.--Jimbo Wales 23:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

-from User talk:Jimbo Wales

1 An interesting quote
2 LdS Women Sealed to Multiple Men
3 Financial responsibility and polyandry
4 Clean up please.
5 "Spiritual wifery"
6 Group sex
7 Abandoning the Practice
8 Anon's observation
9 Celestial Marriage

In today's culture, a man marrying a 14-year old would be quickly labeled as a dirty-old man or felon. However, an entirely different culture existed in the pre-MTV, pre-Internet, pre-oversexed generation, mid-1800s. Victorian values ruled society. The average marrying age was between 14 and 16.

Is this really true?! This seems like total guess-work to me. Everything I've read states that menarche (the onset of puberty in young women) in the 1800s was around 16 or 17 on average, compared to today's average of about four years earlier. This page:

http://dept.kent.edu/museum/exhibit/ohio/Children.htm

states that the minimum age for marriage was 14 for women (with parental consent)--that seems to imply that the average would likely not be between 14 and 16.

Moreover, it the quote implies that early marriage was the norm until MTV and the Internet. In fact, *late* marriage was the norm in most of western Europe before the industrial revolution. For example, in 17th century England, average marriage ages were in the mid twenties.

Patrick's addition of "until 1890" reflects the common error that leaders of the Church did not condone and that members did not continue to practice plural marriage after the "Manifesto" was issued in 1890. The practice was dramatically reduced but it continued privately into the early 1900s when President Smith issued yet another manifesto-type-proclamation to end plural marriage in the Church. Patrick's removal of "usually referred to as" and "as practiced by the members of the church" and "properly called" ignores the fact that Mormons and non-Mormons often, if not typically, refer to the Mormon's practice of plural marriage as "polygamy", and less commonly by its doctrinal name, "plural marriage".

Hi Patrick. I don't think the quotes work. The quotes make it seem like a commonly used phrase..."polygamy as practiced by the Mormons", but it is not. What I'm saying is that people usually refer to the Mormon's practice as polygamy even though the practice was actually polygyny and the doctrinal name is "Plural Marriage".

172.197.34.224's latest edit and the insertion that the article is disputed with absolutely no comment is a procedural error. 172.197.34.224 must first state his issues and generate discussion before styling an article like that. B 02:34, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Pakaran's edits regarding polyandry, although well intentioned I'm sure, are not accurate. So, I'm cutting them out. Namely:

"despite polyandry being officially forbidden by the church."
"the fathering of children by polyandrous wives "would also be highly forbidden."

Ok, I'm aware that both are forbidden now, and I got the impression, at least, that a woman cannot be sealed to two men, where a man (a widower) can be sealed to two women. The historic question I'm unclear on. Pakaran . 01:32, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Umm, there is nothing on this page. What gives? I see no history of anything. Hawstom 23:49, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here you are - try again: Plural marriage (Latter-day_Saint) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_marriage_(Latter-day_Saint)

I sure would like to see a reference (more info) for plyg children of JS. Hawstom 23:15, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Interesting perspectives at these sites:

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/ http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/merlbyu.htm

I don't consider them very wonderfully researched, but have some interesting points that are not available on other places on the web.-Visorstuff 01:30, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Studies suggest that the majority of Utah polygamists in the 19th century only had two wives, the man often being a local church leader and the second wife typically being significantly younger."

"man" -> "main"?

[edit] LdS Women Sealed to Multiple Men

Since the 1980s church policy has allowed for deceased women to be sealed to all of the men to whom they were married in life.

I am not sure that this is the case. I assume this statement refers to the practice of temple sealings for the dead. As I understand it, the current policy allows a patron to submit a request to seal a woman to "any" man to whom she was married in this life, but not necessarily "all" of them. The patron (presumably a family member) should prayerfully try to determine how this should be done, although the obvious starting point would be either a) the first husband if he died while they were married, or b) the last husband to whom she was married, but not divorced. The point is that without additional information, we should not presume to know what marriage relationship either party would want to spend eternity in and coming up with a consistent set of rules is virtually impossible. So, family members doing the work make their best effort. In practice, there is nothing set up in the system to prevent a patron from having a woman sealed to every man to whom she was ever married (or even a few beyond that), but this does not mean that those sealings will be considered binding since every temple ordinance is predicated on Divine approval, subject to a) no mistakes being made (right people sealed, etc.) and b) acceptance of the ordinance by the people involved. NThurston 19:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Church policy does allow "for deceased women to be sealed to all of the men to whom they were married in life" but that doesn't mean that it is done routinely, or ought to be. NThurston 14:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There was a letter that came out your bishop could share with you - I believe in 2003 about it. It was more of a "let it get worked out later, but lets take care of the ordinance now" sort of thing. And yes, the doctrine is there - the difference is that it is not taught nor clarified - and therefore unbinding to current LDS adherents, according to church revelations. -Visorstuff 19:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Just want to chime in to agree with your interpretation and to thank you for the clear and accurate addition to the article that you recently made on this topic. Alienus 20:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Financial responsibility and polyandry

I just read this sentence in the main article:

The seeming polyandry of the Prophet Joseph can be understood as a means of being financially responsible in this world for these women who were given to Joseph in Eternal Marriage sealings.

It seems to mean that Joseph Smith was being financially responsible by letting other men pay for the women and he just had intercourse with them. And promised to take over after death. I suggest deleting this sentence, and perhaps paragraph. At the very least, the word "prophet" should be deleted, as it suggests POV of believing that JS is a prophet. If not not deleted, it could be rewritten as:

Joseph Smith's polyandry can be understood as a means of avoiding financial responsibility for these women and allowing their first husband to continue to have financial responsibility.

I really don't mean to attack the practice here, just to suggest that this line is trying way too hard to justify the polyandry. Can anyone come up with a better way of writing this? I do think deleting the line is best. Nereocystis 21:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up please.

The seeming polyandry of the Prophet Joseph can be understood as a means of being financially responsible in this world for these women who were given to Joseph in Eternal Marriage sealings. For some he did marry for eternity remained with the men they had married for time, and some were married for time to others at a later date, that none would be left destitute. For a woman can be sealed by revelation to a man for all eternity, yet she can be married to another for time; nevertheless, the children she bears shall belong to the man she is sealed to for eternity.

D&C 132:66 promised more revelation concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, and clearly such is needed.

Contrast in style, lack of comprehensibility. I couldn't try to clean this up without being the author myself, so I won't--Tznkai 30 June 2005 17:50 (UTC)

[edit] "Spiritual wifery"

There has been a recent anonymous edit suggesting that "spiritual wifery" as a reference to plural marriage is incorrect. I don't think so. The term spiritual wife was in use in Nauvoo, and was mentioned in the Nauvoo Expositor. There is documentation for this, if necessary, but I don't think it's an important point. For example:

"At the time [in Nauvoo] spiritual wife was the title by which every woman who entered into this order was called, for it was taught and practiced as a spiritual order." (Helen Mar Whitney, Quoted in In Sacred Loneliness, 632.)

COGDEN 22:02, September 7, 2005 (UTC).

I've removed "spritual wifery" from the topic sentence. I think we should define the term later in the article. From recently reading Bushman's-Rough Stone Rolling, Smith and the members at the time saw a difference between this term and plural marriage. The use of this term to describe John C. Bennett's sexual activities in his church trial and excommunication may move the term closer to a definition of adultery. And Smith used the term, if memory serves, in his denial of accusations of immorality/polygamy. Sounds like we should talk about the use of the word rather than make it a synonym. WBardwin 01:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Group sex

The article currently says:

Mormon plural marriages did not include group sex under this practice.

This sounds like it means one of the following:

This sentence suggests that plural marriage never included group sex.
Group sex was prohibited in plural marriage.

Proving 1 is impossible. If 2 is true, I would like a reference. Alternatively, we could say:

There are no documented cases of group sex in plural marriage.

A comment about group sex should be included, because a lot of people wonder about sex. Nereocystis 15:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I am posting here the dialogue that led to the edit named:

Hey - noticed your comments at Plural Marriage. You stated in your edit summary "no documented occurances of group sex" and changed "Most plural marriages did not involve group sex" to "There are no known occurances of group sex under this practice."

This is true. Somewhat. This depends on you definition of "evidence."

There is evidence of that Young placed a family on the Mormon trail where the husband and two wives slept in the same bed. Whether or not this was done to discourage non-Mormon settlement near Mormon communities or not is a matter of some dispute. As it was a waystation, all pioneering companies had to stop there and likely would witness the set up. This is where the claim of "evidence" comes from. Obviously, one bed, two women and a man, would lead people to believe that sexual relations occured in the bed, which by definition is group sex. Stupid reasoning, but it is enough to provide "evidence" although not very reliable.

I think a more accurate reflection of the statement would be "Mormon plural marriages did not include group sex."

Would you like to make the change? -Visorstuff 23:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough - used your correction. --Tobey 04:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Part of the marriage covenants in Mormonism as you know, is the instruction that there should be no sexual relations except with one's husband or wife (the temple statement is given in the singular - even historically). This is good enough to qualify as "one at a time." In addition, the early "polygamous" brethren were instructed to provide equally for their wives - seperate homes, or at the least, seperate entrances, seperate beds, etc. The above example was a unusual instruction, and the reasons are unknown. If couples did do group sex, it was outside of the instructions given.

Here are some other instructions given on Polygamous marriages that are relevant:

In a meeting with stake presidents on 9 Oct, 1883, the First Presidency instructed against "self-pollution of both sexes and excessive sexual indulgence in the married relation"

Apostle John Henry Smith taught on 8 Sep, 1890 that "married people who indulge their passions for any other purpose than to beget children, really committed adultery." This was clarified later.

"Mormons are known to be a virtuous people, are known to condemn in strong terms and by every influence in their power every form of sexual sin, and that they do not indulge in intercourse with the sexes to any extent only in the marriage relation. This was the well known and established character of the Mormon people, and was the result of their teachings and practice for a generation past." -Journal of Discourses, Vol.26, p.221 - p.226, Erastus Snow, May 31st, 1885

"There is no law in this territory punishing polygamy, but there is one, however, for the punishment of adultery; and all illegal intercourse between the sexes, if either party have a husband or wife living at the time, is adulterous and punishable by indictment." B. H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol.4, Ch.110, p.357 (the law did prohibit multiple sexual partners)

That said, I think the teaching of church leaders on the matter was pretty clear. I'll modify shortly. -Visorstuff 19:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The wording in the article is still unclear to me.

You're right that sharing a bed does not prove sexual relations. Quinn covers this issue in Same-Sex Dynamics among 19th-Century Mormons. Extra warmth at night is a plus even if sex is excluded.

None of the quotes listed above explicitly prohibit group sex. The one at a time quote is marginal for this purpose. If the 2 wives never touch each other, but only the jointly shared husband, the letter of the law is followed, but still, it counts as group sex. Throw in wife-to-wife contact, and the violation is still unclear. The Old Testament does not prohibit lesbianism, and many sources are less historical references are less concerned about lesbians than gay men.

Even if group sex were prohibited, it may have taken place, and is impossible to disprove. Here are some references which are suggestive of non-straight sex among the Mormons.

The first American community study of lesbians took place in the United States (http://www.affirmation.org/memorial/lesbian_mormon_history.asp). Louie B. Felt (primary president) fell in love with a couple of women and encouraged her husband to marry them. See http://home.earthlink.net/~lgbtmormons/abom.html for details. This doesn't group sex, of course, but suggests that love between some of the wives.

I don't know how to improve the wording for the article, but I'll take a stab. I don't like any of the options yet.

Group sex was not mentioned in Mormon discussions of plural marriage.

Group sex was not explicitly encouraged by Mormon leaders.

Nereocystis 22:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, I am aware of one or two anamolies, but for the most part, they did have seperate beds and were encouraged to have seperate, but equal in all things. Quinn discusses every available source that even remotely points toward this. There are no others that I am aware of. I think that as the teaching of plural marriage or the doctrine of plural marriage did not include any teaching of group sex, then the current wording works: "Group sex was not part of Mormon Plural marriage." This allows for people to believe what they will. However, to satiate your argument, I will further clarify "Group sex was not part of the teachings of Mormon plural marriage." It has been mentioned in discussions of plural marriage (Quinn discusses it for example) and of course it woundn't be encouraged or discouraged, as most would consider it an "unholy and impure practice." I'll make the change. It also seems that the anomolies - such as the one referenced earlier - that result in strict instructions to co-habitate in the same household. These were exceptions and usually direct instructions to do so. Quinn, however, only slightly points to this in his work, which I think is a disservice to the reader. But that is my opinion and not his. -Visorstuff 23:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that you are right. However, if we judged marriage by Joseph Smith's published writings, we would think that he was monogamous. Of course, polygamy itself was considered immoral by most Americans. The Supreme Court called it odious.

Many practices which were considered unholy and impure have been preached against, from murder to adultery. If the hierarchy were concerned about group sex among polygamists, they would have preached against it. Maybe it didn't cross their minds. Perhaps it was only discussed in private. Perhaps it was too odious to mention.

Of course, separate beds, or even houses, don't completely prevent group sex, just as sleeping in one bed doesn't prove sex.

That's why I don't like "Group sex was not part of Mormon Plural marriage." We can guess, but we don't know. One example of group sex among plural marriages would make the sentence untrue.

I prefer "Group sex was not part of the teachings of Mormon plural marriage." It states exactly what it means, and doesn't say anything about areas which we don't have information about. I wouldn't mind quoting historians who express an opinion on the subject. Nereocystis 00:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

One more thought. How many of the journals mention sex at all? The existence of children suggest that sex happened among polygamous households. The lack of discussion of sex in journals did not change this conclusion. If 2-person sex is not mentioned in journals, the lack of mention of group sex does not prove that group sex did not happen. Nereocystis 00:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I have about a half-dozen accounts of sexual relations on hand. Most discuss how hard it is to share yourself with two women, or knowing that your husband is with another woman. One case discusses how awkward the sexual relations are because she feels she is compared to other wives. Another that she wishes she could spend more intimate time with her husband. Another states simply that it was a good thing that he had other wives, as she didn't enjoy it much and that he basically only showed up to her home to procreate more children to raise up for her former, deceased husband (or to pay the bills/take care of the home). There are more than the few I have on hand, but they are similar - always talking about intercourse as it relates to having children, awkwardness about being compared, wondering and wishing that they could have intimate moments more often. Realizing how intercourse makes a couple "one," the emotional bond of sexual relations and of course, abstaining from sex while fasting. In every case I've read, discussion of sexual relations deals with a husband and wife, not wives. But that's my research. I don't think that anyone else has done more than quinn and compton on the subject, but many have done as much as they have, as there is not a lot of data available. I like how the para reads now. Shall we leave it for now? -Visorstuff 05:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The current wording looks good.

Your other comments brings up the issue of jealousy, which probably was a big issue for the polygamists. Stories in my family suggest that the wives didn't really get along all that well. Perhaps this can be added when time permits. Nereocystis 16:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that outward jealously was the exeption, not the norm. It would be impossible to find a consensus of their true feelings on the matter. For them, it was likely, "just the way things were." My family and my research has mixed statements on the matter. Only one seemed to have issues, the rest were either sisters or became best friends. -Visorstuff 21:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abandoning the Practice

Nice article. I have rearranged some parts for continuity, removed some redundancy, made a few POV alterations, and corrected spelling of a word.

At the end of the first paragraph, after mentioning the church's renunciation of the practice, there was a sentence and a paragraph describing that renunciation and discussing the "fundamentalists" who have disagreed with it. Because it has all stemmed from abandonment, and there is already an entire section on abandonment, I put the whole part down there, combining it with a pre-existing paragraph that previously was a repetition of the topic of "Mormon fundamentalists".

In that paragraph, I replaced "Saints" with "polygamists" because as far as I know, the term "Saint", if used at all by non-LDS within context of the Mormon movement, rarely or never refers to the "fundamentalists", only to LDS church members. This may make the reader think that it's LDS church members who are constituting the membership of these separate, unaffiliated churches.

I also changed "despite opposition by government and the mainstream church" to "despite the ostensible opposition of the government and LDS church leaders". I added "ostensible" because although the practice is illegal to both said state and church, neither group really does anything about the branch-off churches; the government prefers to abstain from difficult (and now, controversial) enforcement among consenting individuals, and the church has no jurisdiction over non-members, and has long since expended its evangelical hopes with polygamists. I took out "mainstream" for the same reasoning as above; I don't say it doesn't exist, but the practice is not visible at all in the LDS church, even in its inactive extremities, and should not be portrayed as though it is. Very, very few are the LDS members who have actually met a polygamist in real life, moreso with the Church's expansion.

Then, I added "families" as one of the forms of the practice of polygamy, because some families don't associate with an organized sect, but "individuals" does not adequately describe their organization, as they teach the same to their children.

I added "In consequence of the tendency of outsiders to confuse the LDS church with the breakaway groups" to the paragraph about the Church's attempt to change journalists' usage of "Mormon". Otherwise, it sounded as though the Church's motive was obfuscation instead of clarification, which was the whole impetus of the usage campaign -- the Church, espeically outside of Utah, got tired of being mistaken for the small and secretive polygamous groups people sometimes read about in the news. I added "themselves" after "modern polygamists" so the press wouldn't sound so belligerent.

Lastly, I made two changes to the second paragraph under Critical views: first, I changed "Some critics argue the LDS Church's current policy against the practice of plural marriage is disingenuous, for several reasons" to "Some critics, expecting that the LDS Church's formal departure from plural marriage should equate with a doctrinal reformation, see the church's current policy as disingenuous for several reasons". These critics evidently are opposed to the church's former stance; and when you censure somebody for not changing, and then for changing, your argument sounds more like implacable hostility. This edit softens that, and gives a little more logic to the critics' argument.

Second was more of a factual point; I removed "Plural marriage... is not... discussed at Church meetings (Church leaders are discouraged from teaching or discussing polygamy)". Actually, while the Church's current lesson books do not throw the doctrine into the spotlight, plural marriage is not uncommonly brought up in class discussions. As far as I have seen, all but new members, and perhaps inactive converts, are well aware of it; and in some congregations, you could even say it is frequently commented on, albeit often lightheartedly. Church leaders may be instructed not to from "promote", "advocate", or "encourage" plural marriage; as to that, I'm unaware; but there is no stricture in the classroom, and it is even freely mentioned at the lectern by lay speakers without any admonishment, or even a sideways glance or grumble. Discussion is not at all proscribed, as this paragraph seemed to report. Bravo-Alpha 17:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Welcome aboard - Some good edits. However some considerations of adding back in/reverting some edits:

You may want to see the discussion at Talk:Bruce R. McConkie about polygamy. I know that the topic is occasionally is brought up in gospel doctrine, but it is not supposed to, according to church policy and GHI and the D&C OD 1. From the talk page:

if you are familiar with the history of polygamy in the LDS church you would know that the church does not teach polygamy: "When any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved." Not one thing should be taught about plural marriage in the Church after the manifesto was sustained as part of the canon in the LDS church, re-emphasized and found as binding to the church at large (under HJG administration). So, of course the correlation would remove references to polygamy - as it is current church policy on the matter..

I have been counselled to, and have in turn stopped the discussion of plural marriage in classes I've been a part of.

Second, your edits may seem very offensive to those who are not LDS. FLDS and UAB and others refer to themselves as Saints. when editing, place yourself in their shoes more. The edits are great from an LDS POV, but may be offensive to those who are not LDS, but are "Mormon."

Can you go back and make these two changes? Mormonism is bigger than the LDS Church, it is part of the broader Latter Day Saint movement. Your edits reflect only the LDS Church, and should be modified. Care to take a stab? Keep up the good work. -Visorstuff 23:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

incidentally, you can sign your posts automatically by typing four tildes in a row like this: (~~~~). You also may want to check out the WP:LDS. Hope to see more of you around. -Visorstuff 23:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

What a warm welcome. Thanks for the advice. But I can't see why you referred me to that spanking match in Bruce McConkie Talk...

My aversion to the concept of "plural marriage not being taught" comes from its presence in three of the four volumes of the canon of scripture. Regardless, I think my latest changes are more in line with what you've suggested. If not, go ahead and correct it. Bravo-Alpha 09:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Referred you there for the discussion on plural marriage not being taught in current cirruclum. I like your changes - has resulted in a stronger article. I do agree that it can be confusing between a doctrine that has been restored and can be studied personally, and officially discouraged from being taught. Good work, and welcome aboard. Hope to see more of you around the WP:LDS. -Visorstuff 16:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anon's observation

It is a fact that a child is not sexually, or emotionally mature enough to understand the full extent of what being married means. She will be raped physically, mentionally and emotionally. the man that takes a child for sex is a rapist. Any deity would know that, and that's all that needs to be said about that. Unsigned by User:70.161.125.122

Not sure what the point is on the above. Most who practiced "plural marriage" historically have entered into such marriage relationships after legal age. There are some modern groups who do enter into relationships as young as 14, but that is the unfortunate exception, not the rule. In any case, thanks for sharing your opinions with the community. -Visorstuff 01:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celestial Marriage

I'm deleting the part that says plural marriage is sometimes called "celestial marriage." This is nonsense. Celestial marriage is simply marriage in "heaven." It is neutral as to number. Amulekii 20:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, polygamy was introduced as a part of the number-neutral doctrine of celestial marriage, so the two are linked. Al 20:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this quote from http://www.principlevoices.org/article.php?story=20050907151620323:

(This is why Fundamentalist Mormons prefer the terms plural marriage, celestial marriage or patriarchal marriage, instead of the term polygamy.)

Looks like CM is still in use, as a euphemism for polygamy. Al 20:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that a claim by an anonymous guest write establishes this fact as verified. At best this is an unverifiable secondary source. If someone can find a reliable primary source, I would be OK with saying that a particular group uses the term. Certainly, it is not in widespread use among those who discuss or study the topic. --NThurston 21:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's distinguish between wanting a citation and genuinely doubting this claim, shall we? If it's the former, we can dig a little deeper. If it's the latter, we need to have a little chat. Al 22:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, for me, it's a bit of both. Mostly, this fact is likely to be disputed, which makes it a clear candidate for needing to be documented. (See ^{[citation needed]}.) At the same time, although I have no evidence one way or the other, I doubt that this term is currently in wide use to refer to the practice of polygamy, with the possible exception of a few communities. So, I think the article would benefit from verification of how widespread its use is, preferably by a verifiable primary source. --NThurston 22:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about: http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/ Al 17:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems like adequate documentation that at least one person uses the term "celestial marriage" to refer to polygamy. It is rather narrow, however, and does not document how widespread the term is used (which is what I think is needed). It should be noted that the "celestial marriage" link refers to a quote from JD which does not even associate using the term "celestial marriage" with polygamy, rather it documents the root of a separate valid discussion about whether a monogamous marriage could qualify a person for exaltation in the 19th century view. Based on this documentation, the application of the term "celestial marriage" to polygamy appears to be restricted to a few 20th or 21st century writers who study or advocate a point of view that extends the JD quote to imply that all celestial marriages require a polygamous relationship. Even there, to me it would be a logical stretch to say that the terms are interchangeable, because I am sure that there are polygamous marriages (i.e., Islamic or tribal) that would not qualify as celestial marriages, so there must be some differentiation in their usage. So, while I do not doubt that there are some who use the terms interchangeably, my thoughts are 1) it is probably not linguistically correct to do so, and 2) I doubt that there are many serious Mormon History scholars who use this terminology. --NThurston 16:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/l/u/Talk%7EPlural_marriage_aed7.html"