APA on Consensual Nonmonogamy spin-off thread: Mormon Polygamy

[Calm]

For Stem to continue his subtopic:

Smac started a thread discussing the apparent lack of discussion of impact on children planned for the APA task force on consensual nonmonogamy relationships here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72052-the-apa-tackles-consensual-non-monogamy/

stem’s response to the OP (posted here as declared offtopic by opening poster, smac)

Quote

All fairly good points against...the Mormon practice of polygamy, that polygamy that was supposedly not only sanctioned by God but thought to be the more divine of situations, when contrasted with monogamy.  

Discuss as desired by Stem, consider him opening poster.  

Edited July 19, 2019 by Calm

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

For Stem to continue his subtopic:

Smac started a thread discussing the apparent lack of discussion of impact on children planned for the APA task force on consensual nonmonogany relationships here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72052-the-apa-tackles-consensual-non-monogamy/

stem’s response to the OP (posted here as declared offtopic by opening poster, smac)

Discuss as desired by Stem, consider him opening poster.  

I'll start!

I submit that 19th-century Latter-day Saint polygamy had little to no overlap with the sorts of sexual libertinism described in the article about the APA.

The polygamy of our forefathers was based on marital relationships between a man and a woman.  The "sister wives" were not married to each other, nor were they sexually involved with each other, or with anyone else except the husband.  There was nothing like the effects likely attendant to partner swapping, swinging, and similar forms of hedonism.

Nevertheless, to the extant there is some overlap (Stem, feel free to substantiate that), such issues may be part of why polygamy was unworkable as a long-term practice.  It would have been too difficult to live "the Principle" in the 20th century and beyond.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 18, 2019 by smac97

[strappinglad]

IIRC there were several men who were later exed because they used polygamy as license to satisfy their own lusts. Joseph has been accused of all that for almost 200 years. IMHO polygamy in a closed society is unsustainable. There will inevitably be too many ' lost boys ' and under age brides. 

[JulieM]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

For Stem to continue his subtopic:

Smac started a thread discussing the apparent lack of discussion of impact on children planned for the APA task force on consensual nonmonogany relationships here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72052-the-apa-tackles-consensual-non-monogamy/

stem’s response to the OP (posted here as declared offtopic by opening poster, smac)

Discuss as desired by Stem, consider him opening poster.  

You’re a very nice lady, Calm (but we all already knew that!!)

[Kenngo1969]

36 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You’re a very nice lady, Calm (but we all already knew that!!)

Hmm ... I don't know that anybody who knows Latin would agree with that!

[SettingDogStar]

4 hours ago, strappinglad said:

IIRC there were several men who were later exed because they used polygamy as license to satisfy their own lusts. Joseph has been accused of all that for almost 200 years. IMHO polygamy in a closed society is unsustainable. There will inevitably be too many ' lost boys ' and under age brides. 

Agreed. However, to add, I'm under the opinion that it's hardly sustainable in an open society, at least with all parties happy and in agreement. Satans power is gripping further and further into families and encouraging adultery, sexual/physical/emotional abuse, and child abandonment and abuse. Polygamy would have most likely been disastrous had it continued into this century and been a far more enabling system for abusers to reach more victims then before. 

Obviously I have no statistics to back me up, just my thoughts on it. 

[blueglass]

Compare w parti visit the other thread

 

"Ladies and gentlemen, I exhort you to think for yourselves, and read your Bibles for yourselves, get the Holy Spirit for yourselves, and pray for yourselves, that your minds may be divested of false traditions and early impressions that are untrue. Those who are acquainted with the history of the world are not ignorant that polygamy has always been the general rule and monogamy the exception. Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout all Christendom, and which has been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious."

Personality of God, His Attributes, Eternal Life,

President Brigham Young, Bowery, SLC, June 18, 1865.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Compare w parti visit the other thread

? Compare with the other thread?

Edited July 19, 2019 by Calm

[blueglass]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

? Compare with the other thread?

Polygamy is not allowed to be discussed, quoted, or compared to non monagamy according to the funny rules of the other thread.

Edited July 19, 2019 by blueglass

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'll start!

I submit that 19th-century Latter-day Saint polygamy had little to no overlap with the sorts of sexual libertinism described in the article about the APA.

The polygamy of our forefathers was based on marital relationships between a man and a woman.  The "sister wives" were not married to each other, nor were they sexually involved with each other, or with anyone else except the husband.  There was nothing like the effects likely attendant to partner swapping, swinging, and similar forms of hedonism.

Nevertheless, to the extant there is some overlap (Stem, feel free to substantiate that), such issues may be part of why polygamy was unworkable as a long-term practice.  It would have been too difficult to live "the Principle" in the 20th century and beyond.  .....................

There were accusations of common wifery, and some married women being simultaneously sealed to another man.  Some men being sealed to each other.  The complexities are enormous.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, SettingDogStar said:

Agreed. However, to add, I'm under the opinion that it's hardly sustainable in an open society, at least with all parties happy and in agreement. Satans power is gripping further and further into families and encouraging adultery, sexual/physical/emotional abuse, and child abandonment and abuse. Polygamy would have most likely been disastrous had it continued into this century and been a far more enabling system for abusers to reach more victims then before. 

Obviously I have no statistics to back me up, just my thoughts on it. 

Anthropologists think that polygyny is the most common form of human marriage historically, and it is currently practiced widely among Muslims.

Jeanna Bryner, “ Are Humans Meant to Be Monogamous?” LiveScience, September 06, 2012, online at http://www.livescience.com/32146-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html . 

Michael E. Price, “Are People ‘Naturally’ Polygamous?” The human mind evolved in a polygynous world,” Psychology Today, August 18, 2011, online at http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201108/are-people-naturally-polygamous-0 

Ewen Callaway, “Polygamy left its mark on the human genome,” New Scientist, September 26, 2008, online at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14817-polygamy-left-its-mark-on-the-human-genome.html#.VIvgoSvF98E .  

David P. Barash and Judth Eve Lipton, The Myth of Monogamy (Holt, 2002).

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10/are_humans_monogamous_or_polygamous_the_evolution_of_human_mating_strategies_.html 
 

[SettingDogStar]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Anthropologists think that polygyny is the most common form of human marriage historically, and it is currently practiced widely among Muslims.

Jeanna Bryner, “ Are Humans Meant to Be Monogamous?” LiveScience, September 06, 2012, online at http://www.livescience.com/32146-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html . 

Michael E. Price, “Are People ‘Naturally’ Polygamous?” The human mind evolved in a polygynous world,” Psychology Today, August 18, 2011, online at http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201108/are-people-naturally-polygamous-0 

Ewen Callaway, “Polygamy left its mark on the human genome,” New Scientist, September 26, 2008, online at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14817-polygamy-left-its-mark-on-the-human-genome.html#.VIvgoSvF98E .  

David P. Barash and Judth Eve Lipton, The Myth of Monogamy (Holt, 2002).

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10/are_humans_monogamous_or_polygamous_the_evolution_of_human_mating_strategies_.html 
 

Interesting. So we either have the commandment of polygamy being a “truth nugget” that’s made its way into nearly every culture and religion or it’s a perversion of the monogamous family that has gotten popular throughout history. I think it might be a little of both since Satan rarely creates his own ideas and just rips off true principles. Maybe polygamy is okay but only if you 1) can truly love and take care of the other wives and 2) are given those wives by revelation from the Lord. 

However, dozens to hundreds of concubines/wives used purely for sex or child bearing and then essentially neglected of affection, is probably not approved.

Who knows honestly? This debate has been going on from the beginning of this dispensation and I would imagine has been going on a lot longer then even that.

Edited July 19, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[Calm]

9 hours ago, blueglass said:

Polygamy is not allowed to be discussed, quoted, or compared to non monagamy according to the funny rules of the other thread.

So?  Not following you....

If smac is focusing on analyzing the APA treatment and there is no indication that any form of “Mormon” polygamy (am including break offs as well) will be examined by the APA (and somehow I doubt they will be pushing for acceptance of any FLDS or other current religious polygamy group, but if there is evidence otherwise I am interested in seeing it), then it doesn’t seem “funny” to me to ask those who want to examine polygamy by using the criticisms posted in the other thread to create another thread to do so as that is off topic as it has nothing to do with the APA task force, correct?

I assume anyone claiming that the criticisms might be applied to Mormon polygamy is not also suggesting that the criticisms are invalid for some reason, but rather that implying that smac and others using those criticisms to condemn the APA’s behaviour while not being critical in general of the historic practice of early Mormon polygamy (not including any current practices) are being inconsistent if they don’t also disapprove of polygamy.  If my analysis is correct, while it is a related and appropriate for the board imo topic, it still isn’t tied to the value of the APA task force imo, so it makes sense why smac doesn’t want it to sidetrack that thread. 

Edited July 19, 2019 by Calm

[california boy]

If the federal government hand not forced the Church to give up polygamy or loose every bit of property including the temples, Church leaders would be praising this latest move of the APA.  Instead a thread gets started with the intent to gin up the members against this latest attack on the family.   I am with Stembow on this one.  The irony is, well, ok, hilarious.  Multiple not legally married sex partners vs multiple sex partners not legally married.  Yeah I see the difference as clear as day.  

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

If the federal government hand not forced the Church to give up polygamy or loose every bit of property including the temples, Church leaders would be praising this latest move of the APA.  Instead a thread gets started with the intent to gin up the members against this latest attack on the family.   I am with Stembow on this one.  The irony is, well, ok, hilarious.  Multiple not legally married sex partners vs multiple sex partners not legally married.  Yeah I see the difference as clear as day.  

I agree there is an overlap on these two (polygamy and polyamory).  Like Robert posted, things were not simple when it came to the polygamous and polyandrous sealings (and other sealings between men).

I think there was much more separation during the Nauvoo days (more like smac wants to portray polygamy....one man with one woman living together or actually in most cases NOT living together, but secretly married).

There were exceptions such as William Clayton's arrangement and even his diary hints at a threesome of sorts (sleeping with both wives together or wanting to).

Then out in Utah, many lived in a one bedroom home with all their wives.  There is even photographic evidence of this (such as the picture of William Dame in front of his one room house with the 4 wives he shared the home with).  

So this is not as black and white as smac wants to portray it as being and there of course is quite a bit of overlap regarding how polygamy was lived vs. how polyamory is lived, IMO.  People are human and not as perfect as many want to believe.  Did it take place a lot back then?  I don't know.  I do believe many men tried very hard to give each of their wives their own home or living space, but there were many who had to share one room with all their wives.  How much sexual overlap there was is anyone's guess since I'd imagine not many would have written about that in their journals.   

[MustardSeed]

15 hours ago, JulieM said:

You’re a very nice lady, Calm (but we all already knew that!!)

Very fair.  I appreciate that. 

[MustardSeed]

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

Multiple not legally married sex partners vs multiple sex partners not legally married.  

I’m with you.  

Too much coercion , very little actual equality going on in any so called agreed upon open relationships and marriage. Imo. 

Edited July 19, 2019 by MustardSeed

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, JulieM said:

You’re a very nice lady, Calm (but we all already knew that!!)

Yup.  

Thanks for starting this thread Calm as this should definitely be a part of the conversation that smac started, IMO.  (Especially on a Mormon discussion forum  )

Edited July 19, 2019 by ALarson

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

 Instead a thread gets started with the intent to gin up the members against this latest attack on the family. 

My issue with the APA approach is that it doesn't appear to include children in the research, etc.  I don't have issues with education of public about nonmonogamous relationships...It is a good idea imo in a diverse society, but I do believe such education if done by what is supposed to be a scientific body should include presenting comprehensive research into impact, good and bad, on all who are affected even if not directly participating (children for sure, but also extended family, the neighbourhoods and greater community if there is an impact there due to unusual needs or dynamics).  And where there is negative impact, presenting helpful suggestions on how to limit harm as much as possible.

Edited July 19, 2019 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I submit that 19th-century Latter-day Saint polygamy had little to no overlap with the sorts of sexual libertinism described in the article about the APA.

The polygamy of our forefathers was based on marital relationships between a man and a woman.  The "sister wives" were not married to each other, nor were they sexually involved with each other, or with anyone else except the husband.  There was nothing like the effects likely attendant to partner swapping, swinging, and similar forms of hedonism.

Nevertheless, to the extant there is some overlap (Stem, feel free to substantiate that), such issues may be part of why polygamy was unworkable as a long-term practice.  It would have been too difficult to live "the Principle" in the 20th century and beyond.  

There was however psychological effects from "favored wife" as well as women being effectively single parents for long stretches all had psychological effects. There also was a very liberal divorce policy at the time. The liberal divorce policy became part of the gentile opposition to polygamy since they saw them as related. The divorce policy, extremely unusual for the day, basically was a no-fault policy where people could get divorced just for wanting one and frequently apply and be granted the divorce the same day. (For more on divorce in the early Utah period see "Divorce and Divorce Mills in the American West" in Divorce: An American Tradition) 

While I think D&C 132 is a divine revelation, I also don't think early Mormons particularly lived it well. In particular I don't think any human being could justifiably serve their wives with the large number of wives some had. There were numerous other social effects. The people may well have been well meaning but lots of negative consequences frequently followed.

[rockpond]

I think that the difference between consensual non-monogamy (as described in the OP of the other thread) is different from the LDS practice of polygamy in that all (or at least nearly all) of the participants in plural marriage felt that they were making some type of long term commitment.

However, since the OP references the impact to children, I think there is overlap between consensual non-polygamy and LDS plural marriage when you consider other details.  Let's take Brigham Young for example (admitting that this is likely the most extreme example):

BY had 55 wives (not all concurrently) and 59 children.

Six of his wives had living husbands when they were married to BY.

BY divorced ten of his wives.

Three of his wives were also the mothers of his other wives.

Young married the ex-wife of one of his stepsons.

 

While I detest the concept of "consensual non-monogamy" especially when children are involved, I feel that the above described family life isn't entirely different.  Estimates are that BY was conjugal with 35 wives, though not all were alive at the same time, that's less than two weeks per year in which BY was living with the mother of a particular child.

 

Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brigham_Young's_wives

 

[MustardSeed]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

BY was conjugal with 35 wives, though not all were alive at the same time,

Hmmmm

 

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

If the federal government hand not forced the Church to give up polygamy or loose every bit of property including the temples, Church leaders would be praising this latest move of the APA.  Instead a thread gets started with the intent to gin up the members against this latest attack on the family.   I am with Stembow on this one.  The irony is, well, ok, hilarious.  Multiple not legally married sex partners vs multiple sex partners not legally married.  Yeah I see the difference as clear as day.  

I'm not sure that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its leaders would be praising the American Psychological Association.  Historically, psychology hasn't exactly been on good terms with religion.  Only relatively recently has psychology come to see religious devotion as something more than entirely delusional, and it has only belatedly accepted the concept that the religious devotion of a person vis-a-vis potential psychopathology should be assessed in terms of to how others of the same faith see, experience, and practice their religion in order to determine whether devotion allegedly is "delusional" or not.  And I certainly don't think that President Nelson has ever dropped his pen, closed his journal, and said, "Copy that!  Let's just run it past the powers-that-be at the APA to see what they think of it first, and we'll be set!" 

Edited July 19, 2019 by Kenngo1969

[smac97]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

There was however psychological effects from "favored wife" as well as women being effectively single parents for long stretches all had psychological effects.

Good points.  

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

There also was a very liberal divorce policy at the time. The liberal divorce policy became part of the gentile opposition to polygamy since they saw them as related. The divorce policy, extremely unusual for the day, basically was a no-fault policy where people could get divorced just for wanting one and frequently apply and be granted the divorce the same day. (For more on divorce in the early Utah period see "Divorce and Divorce Mills in the American West" in Divorce: An American Tradition) 

This creates some difficulty for those (like me) who dislike the no-fault divorce regime.  Ah, well.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

While I think D&C 132 is a divine revelation, I also don't think early Mormons particularly lived it well.

It's an inherently difficult arrangement.  Perhaps D&C 132 had more to do with sifting and/or Jacob 2:30 reasoning, and was not intended to be a long-term element of the Restored Church (at present, anyway).

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

In particular I don't think any human being could justifiably serve their wives with the large number of wives some had.

Yes, but I think the pragmatic/transactional aspects of marriage predominated more then as compared to now.  

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

There were numerous other social effects. The people may well have been well meaning but lots of negative consequences frequently followed.

This is what makes polygamy the big outlier for me.  Most other aspects of the Gospel are, for me, intuitively "good" and rational.  Polygamy?  Not so much.  Same with animal sacrifice and a few other things.  

But that's what faith is for, I suppose.

Thanks,

-Smac

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, but I think the pragmatic/transactional aspects of marriage predominated more then as compared to now.  

This is an important point often neglected in judging polygamy of the era. I don't think many from that era (Mormon or gentile) dealt with marriage or parenthood particularly well. Especially in the post-war era romance and love are seen as the key constituents of marriage. While it's wrong to say such things were absent from the 19th century, they certainly weren't dominant. Which isn't to deny love in marriages just that marriage had strong practical reasons rather than how we see it today where most of our immediate needs are taken care of.

That said though, polygamy made existing structures worse in many ways. Even if it was a test to see if people could live out of love rather than lust, and to provide families for widows, in practice it simply didn't function that way usually. (Which isn't to deny that occasionally it did) I frequently wonder if half the condemnations from the Lord we got in the early Utah period were due to living the principle so poorly - although some of that I also attribute to the late Nauvoo period.

Edited July 19, 2019 by clarkgoble