Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Cooperation in Polygynous Households


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, member10_1 said:

You can’t think of specific reasons as to why polygamy would be the best path but you’re comfortable stating that it was? 

My great great grandmother felt it was the closest experience to celestial love one could have in mortality, so I know at least one woman who lived it who saw it that way.

I would not be the least bit surprised if she was in a small minority though.  I suspect from what I have read of their words more women who saw value in it saw it as more refiner's fire than refuge of love.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

My great great grandmother felt it was the closest experience to celestial love one could have in mortality, so I know at least one woman who lived it who saw it that way.

I would not be the least bit surprised if she was in a small minority though.  I suspect from what I have read of their words more women who saw value in it saw it as more refiner's fire than refuge of love.

Actually, I have ancestors who write about the love they experienced too.  What's interesting is they are referring to the love that the sister wives shared and how they pulled together, helped raise each other's children and so on.  Their husband was actually gone for years at a time and was really rarely home.  I have to believe it was hard on him too, but I have not read any of them write of their love for him....only each other.  I'm sure they must have admired him though and the service he gave to the church.

Link to comment

I don't know anything about Nigerian culture, but I am thinking trust isn't automatic in relationships.  If the husband chooses new wives without input from his current wives, I think it might be harder to give trust whether modern Nigerian or 19th century American.  If wives have lots of input, then trust would be higher most likely, I am speculating.

Otoh, commitment to a shared religion might increase levels of trust of those one is unfamiliar with and help raise overall trust more quickly.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
18 hours ago, ALarson said:

I do not believe that polygamy came from God.  Why would He command something that would end up being "torturous circumstances" for many involved (the women, the men or the children)?  

IMO, it came from man and was presented as being God's will.  I know some may disagree.  But I especially do not believe that God would have commanded Joseph to do anything that would have caused him to have to be dishonest, and betray and hurt his wife in order to accomplish it.  

God’s commands often lead to actual literal torture (see Nephi, Peter, Abinadi, Jesus, Joseph Smith, and many more). The idea that his commandments might lead to extreme pain is not a shocking or revolutionary idea.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
18 hours ago, member10_1 said:

You can’t think of specific reasons as to why polygamy would be the best path but you’re comfortable stating that it was? 

Yes, because God commanded it and (less importantly) because some of my ancestors whose struggles with polygamy I have read about testified of its refining strength.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, pogi said:

This is in relation to the quote I commented on earlier: 

In other words, in some cultures like Native American cultures, where cultural obligations are that money must be shared equally with all family members (see my previous post with link) we probably wouldn't see this problem as much.  How does the Muslim religion and culture play into the relationship between sister wives vs Mormon sister wives and their husbands for example.  Are families culturally more open or closed?  How do they communicate regarding money and other issues?  There are so many potential variables at play that without understanding all the variables, again it is reckless to extrapolate the results.

In other words, it is a problem not without a solution. So, no, polygamy is not inherently morally corrupt based on the results of this study.  If anything, all we can conclude is that it can be more challenging - which no one denies.  But with challenge, as Nehor points out, there are opportunities for growth and improved communication skills in developing trust between all involved.  Difficult, yes.  More likely to fail?  Maybe.  But risk is not inherently immoral. Without it, there can be no growth.  Choosing Jesus's plan has inherent risk.  It has built in challenges.  There is no guarantee.  And it is the ONLY plan that provides for growth...

This is surely the most positive spin possible. Nevertheless, by their fruits you shall know them.

Edited by Gray
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Calm said:

Otoh, commitment to a shared religion might increase levels of trust of those one is unfamiliar with and help raise overall trust more quickly.

A sense of divine purpose; a shared mission; shared hardship:  when Sarah and her slave, and Rachel and Leah, got crossways of one another, these things were absent.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Gray said:
21 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

What's so hard about living blind drunk??

Try putting on your pants without falling over. A masters class in pants putting on!

Edited 6 minutes ago by Gray

When one is blind drunk most don't even worry about such things, if they are even aware enough to realize whether they are clothed or not. The thing hard about that is keeping enough alcohol around to keep one blind drunk. Mostly they make life hard on the ones that care for them and law enforcement.

Glenn

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

God’s commands often lead to actual literal torture (see Nephi, Peter, Abinadi, Jesus, Joseph Smith, and many more). The idea that his commandments might lead to extreme pain is not a shocking or revolutionary idea.

But not involve deceit, lies and betraying your wife to live it (command from God).  I cannot imagine God commanding a husband to do anything that involves doing that.  There is no record of God commanding polygamy (other than it may possibly be a part of the Levirate marriage) until Joseph made that claim.  

 

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Gray said:

This is surely the most positive spin possible. Nevertheless, by their fruits you shall know them.

Again, all this study shows is that trust can be more challenging in polygamous families.  This doesn't mean their fruits are immoral. In fact, the study clearly specifies that this is not a result of "pure selfishness".

That is the most negative spin possible.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
43 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

When one is blind drunk most don't even worry about such things, if they are even aware enough to realize whether they are clothed or not. The thing hard about that is keeping enough alcohol around to keep one blind drunk. Mostly they make life hard on the ones that care for them and law enforcement.

Glenn

 All we can conclude is that being blind drunk can be more challenging - which no one denies.  But with challenge, there are opportunities for growth and improved communication skills in developing trust between all involved.  Difficult, yes.  More likely to fail?  Maybe.  But risk is not inherently immoral. Without it, there can be no growth.  Choosing Jesus's plan has inherent risk.  It has built in challenges.  There is no guarantee.  And it is the ONLY plan that provides for growth...

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, pogi said:

Again, all this study shows is that trust can be more challenging in polygamous families.  This doesn't mean their fruits are immoral. 

That is the most negative spin possible. 

It leads to worse outcomes, which you don't seem to be denying. By their fruits you shall know them.

Some other fruits from Mormon experiments with this lifestyle choice: infidelity, lawlessness, the love of wives and husbands waxing cold, parental and spousal neglect, child marriage (statutory rape), and even incest.

 

infidelity: polygamy is infidelity by nature. In early Mormon history because of the secrecy it was also done without consent of the legal wife.

lawlessness: all polygamy in the US has always been illegal, and often leads to more lawlessness to hide the crime

the love of wives and husbands waxing cold: this was actually expressed as the proper way of things by one LDS adherent, in order for the arrangement to be manageable.

parental and spousal neglect: an inevitability once wives and children number in the dozens. Being a good spouse and parent requires an investment in time.

child marriage: another inevitability, as marriageable adult women become scarce

Incest: Is it inevitable? Perhaps - it was a feature of early LDS polygamy as well as FLDS polygamy. Probably a problem with lack of eligible women again.

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But not involve deceit, lies and betraying your wife to live it (command from God).  I cannot imagine God commanding a husband to do anything that involves doing that.  There is no record of God commanding polygamy (other than it may possibly be a part of the Levirate marriage) until Joseph made that claim.  

 

I try not to put limits on what God might ask me to do for fear He might push them.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, juliann said:

This thread is about this study. No red herrings. And if you think women weren't controlled in the 19c century, well, I don't know what to tell you.

Speaking in absolutes - women - ALL WOMEN - were controlled. Hmm, I love to play the victim game. The problem is that speaking in such absolutes never is truthful or accurate because you cannot know if all women were controlled. My gg-grandmother was Candice French. She never married, bore five children, supported herself and her children in the south. Each of her children took her last name. I promise you that she was not "controlled" by any man. She was not a victim and she never saw herself as a victim. She was a fiery, independent woman who simply never conformed to societal norms. 

No, sorry, that women are victims balderdash just does not play for those who actually know women and are unwilling to drink the Kool-aid. 

Edited by Storm Rider
Link to comment
16 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't know anything about Nigerian culture, but I am thinking trust isn't automatic in relationships.  If the husband chooses new wives without input from his current wives, I think it might be harder to give trust whether modern Nigerian or 19th century American.  If wives have lots of input, then trust would be higher most likely, I am speculating.

Otoh, commitment to a shared religion might increase levels of trust of those one is unfamiliar with and help raise overall trust more quickly.

I know a little, since my dad is Nigerian. In some regards people are people no matter where they come from. But there are distinctions. In the christian/non-muslim populations polygamy was practiced not too long ago, usually among leaders of the communities.....or people who could afford to support multiple families/had community capital/respect. This has stopped, but there are practices that are still extremely patriarchal (not as in patriarchal order) and leave women in major binds, legally.....though part of this could be more indicative of some attitudes that came with colonial rule rather that organic cultural heritage. I don't know much about Muslim Nigerian experiences though, since my bio-dad and step-mom were both from christian backgrounds. I would assume though, that of course there are cultural practices and assertions that influence the outcomes or likely success of polygamy. My Nigerian parents have a good relationship....I've met many people who have a range of marriages (all generally monogamous)....the traits that make them such, to me, are fairly universal (trust, obviously, is a biggie). But my personal belief has remained that the more people you put into a relationship, the more likely there is to be mess and dysfunction. The odds that all the adults are equally working together in harmony diminishes and the opportunity to focus and repair damaged relationships between spouse or sister-wives is also diminished because it has to be weighed with also maintaining the healthier relationships as well. 

With luv,

BD

 

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Speaking in absolutes - women - ALL WOMEN - were controlled. Hmm, I love to play the victim game. The problem is that speaking in such absolutes never is truthful or accurate because you cannot know if all women were controlled. My gg-grandmother was Candice French. She never married, bore five children, supported herself and her children in the south. Each of her children took her last name. I promise you that she was not "controlled" by any man. She was not a victim and she never saw herself as a victim. She was a fiery, independent woman who simply never conformed to societal norms. 

No, sorry, that women are victims balderdash just does not play for those who actually know women and are unwilling to drink the Kool-aid. 

She didn't say ALL WOMEN.  You read that into her post to make yourself the victim in this discussion.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Gray said:

It leads to worse outcomes, which you don't seem to be denying. By their fruits you shall know them.

It can lead to worse outcomes in cooperation, but not necessarily.  Again, we can't extrapolate.  Cooperation naturally becomes more difficult when you increase the number of participants trying to work together in any type of group or organization.  This doesn't make them inherently more immoral.  It simply means that there can be greater challenges in cooperation between the group; but on the other hand, where each person brings their unique strengths, qualities, and perspectives to the table, then there can also be benefits. Multiple business partners vs a sole proprietorship, for example can be beneficial in certain regards despite the inherent challenges.  Pros and cons to both.   

All marriages (including monogamy) naturally leads to increased difficulties in cooperation vs. living the single life.  If I was to take your insinuated point that challenge in cooperation is immoral ("by their fruits..."), then I could only conclude that all marriage is immoral then because it has built in challenges with cooperation in financial matters.

Strictly from a financial point of view (as that is what this study is about), polygamy can be very beneficial if entered into with a clear understanding of roles and financial transparency, where other wives can be primary, secondary, or tertiary providers, multiplying financial well-being in a single family home.  I doubt that these Muslim wives in Nigeria were allowed to work, or have financial say in the home.  The result of this study was based on board-game outcomes and not real life scenarios. 

Quote

Some other fruits from Mormon experiments with this lifestyle choice: infidelity, lawlessness, the love of wives and husbands waxing cold, parental and spousal neglect, child marriage (statutory rape), and even incest.

How 'bout we stick to the topic (study) on hand and not divert.  That is all I am commenting on. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Speaking in absolutes - women - ALL WOMEN - were controlled. Hmm, I love to play the victim game. The problem is that speaking in such absolutes never is truthful or accurate because you cannot know if all women were controlled. My gg-grandmother was Candice French. She never married, bore five children, supported herself and her children in the south. Each of her children took her last name. I promise you that she was not "controlled" by any man. She was not a victim and she never saw herself as a victim. She was a fiery, independent woman who simply never conformed to societal norms. 

No, sorry, that women are victims balderdash just does not play for those who actually know women and are unwilling to drink the Kool-aid. 

Storm, you need to watch Sister Wives, poor husband, they all run circles around him. Very strong and opinionated wives. If I had to live polygamy, their family would be awesome. But sadly not all polygamists have their dynamic. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Storm, you need to watch Sister Wives, poor husband, they all run circles around him. Very strong and opinionated wives. If I had to live polygamy, their family would be awesome. But sadly not all polygamists have their dynamic. 

It is amazing when we actually study the lives of our ancestors, much less the lives of other women, how often we find incredibly strong women. My mother's mom came from a Scotch-Irish immigrant family in Missouri. She married three times, had children from two husbands and from one man she just called a roll in the hay. She moved from Missouri to Seattle, WA and then married my grandfather. Blue eyed and with red hair, she ruled her home. Granddad was older than she was, but she directed what happened and did not happen in their home. 

I loved her and found comfort being around her. She was one of the only individuals in my lifetime that I saw could control my dad. She was quick to reign him in when she thought he was being too strict with us children. She just did not take guff off anyone - surtout un homme - and yet she was always feminine. When you wanted to find flowers in abundance you went to see the gardens around her home. 

I can report on the lives of many of my ancestors and on one would ever say the women were controlled by men. This is a farce, a lie, that is perpetrated by a feminist agenda that, apparently, wants to weaken women and belittle them rather than tell the truth. Have some women been controlled by men? Yes. Have some men been controlled by women? Yes. Humans act and are acted upon, but this need to identify one gender being the complete victim of the other is nonsense. 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I can report on the lives of many of my ancestors and on one would ever say the women were controlled by men. This is a farce, a lie, that is perpetrated by a feminist agenda that, apparently, wants to weaken women and belittle them rather than tell the truth. Have some women been controlled by men? Yes. Have some men been controlled by women? Yes. Humans act and are acted upon, but this need to identify one gender being the complete victim of the other is nonsense. 

Storm, I loved reading your description and memories of your grandmother.....sounds like a wonderful lady!

But what I put in bold above is simply not true.  It is not a lie to state that many women were controlled while living polygamy (and many still are in relationships today).  Of course it can go both ways (the woman controlling the man), but when it came to polygamy, it was mainly the young girls and women who were controlled, IMO.  

Link to comment

I don't understand this idea that some stories about polygamy not working correctly or being difficult or painful or damaging means that the fruit of polygamy is bad and obviously its immoral or not of God.  I mean, think about all the horror stories that exist around monogamy.  Monogamy can be a disaster.  It can cause a lot of trauma and disaster.  It can be painful.

Does anyone seriously believe that that means that the fruit of monogamy is bad and that it's immoral or not of God?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...