yet another polygamy thread

[truth dancer]

Hi Dad of 7...

It's easy to sit comfortably in 2006 and cast dispersions on the pioneers, while ignoring the emotional detachment and neglect of serial monogamy and widespread fornication and adultry in our time.

Not really... It is difficult to think of abuse, sorrow, neglect, degradation, and despair, regardless of when and where it occurs.

~dancer~

[KevinG]

Hi Dad of 7...

It's easy to sit comfortably in 2006 and cast dispersions on the pioneers, while ignoring the emotional detachment and neglect of serial monogamy and widespread fornication and adultry in our time.

Not really... It is difficult to think of abuse, sorrow, neglect, degradation, and despair, regardless of when and where it occurs.

~dancer~

My point being that the practice of singular or plural marriage in and of itself is not abusive or neglectful, and more than the number of children in one's family dictates how good a parent one can be towards them.

Understandably polygamy comes with it's own set of difficulties, but it is different, not morally superior or inferior to monogamy (IMO). What is morally superior is what God dictates the practice should be at the time.

I don't think we are in a good position from our comfortable future seat, to cast harsh judgements on the Saints who were doing their best to live God's commandments.

(That is my position and your mileage may vary )

[katherine the great]

(That is my position and your mileage may vary )

You must use Premium!

[KevinG]

(That is my position and your mileage may vary  )

You must use Premium!

In an ironically funny twist to this thread on polygamy and women... Only when my wife doesn't catch me putting it in the tank.

[fox_goku]

The problems with plural marriage are huge. Think about it:

Some men cannot easily get wives because other men have more than one. This puts pressure on younger and younger women to marry. This happened in Mormonism when plural marriage was practiced. What age is too young for marriage? 17, 16, 15, 14, 13????? The FLDS have run into this problem big time.

How are resources to be shared? Does the first wife get the nice brick house and the second wife the one room cabin?

Does the man have to ask all previous wives for permission to marry another wife? What if one of the plural wives does not give permission? Is that a veto that carries any weight?

The birth rate per woman goes down. Why? Simple. She has sex less often.

Who determines when a man has had enough wives? Muslim plural wives in France are usually welfare cases.

How does a women turn down the marital advances of a top priesthood leader? There is always an implicit pressure to say "yes," particularly if plural marriage is promoted as the highest form of marriage.

How does a religious polygamous man date young single women? Courtships are significantly impaired. Bad decisions are easily made.

Let's face it. There was a lot of divorce among those who practiced Mormon plural marriage, even among the prophets! (see e.g., Eugene E. Campbell and Bruce L. Campbell, "Divorce Among Mormon Polygamists: Extent and Explanations," Utah Historical Quarterly 46 (winter 1978): 4-23).

One HUGH problem that Mormon plural marriage had was that there were NO rules as to how to practice it. If there are no rules, then you cannot break the rules.

As for me and my house, I will serve the Lord with one wife and one wife only.

[katherine the great]

The problems with plural marriage are huge. Think about it:

I'm not going to argue that the problems with plural marriage are huge, but I think you have some of your facts mixed up. I don't see any evidence of plural marriage causing a low birth rate. My gggrandfather's four plural wives each had 6--10 children. I do think there were instances of men having more wives than they could properly care for. I think Orson Pratt was one of them.

[KevinG]

Not to be contrary, but what man is ever adequate to the task of caring for a woman?

[katherine the great]

Not to be contrary, but what man is ever adequate to the task of caring for a woman?

I'm talking about the bare necessities that allow a woman to bear children, clothe and feed them. (You know--shelter, food, clothing--the basics.) I shouldn't have said "wives" when I meant "families."

[Nighthawke]

Not to be contrary, but what man is ever adequate to the task of caring for a woman? 

I'm talking about the bare necessities that allow a woman to bear children, clothe and feed them. (You know--shelter, food, clothing--the basics.) I shouldn't have said "wives" when I meant "families."

Is this problem, providing for one's family, one that is strictly a plural marriage problem or is this a problem that is experienced by those in a monogamous marriage as well?

[katherine the great]

Is this problem, providing for one's family, one that is strictly a plural marriage problem or is this a problem that is experienced by those in a monogamous marriage as well?

Well if you can't take care of one family, you sure shouldn't try to take care of five!

[Nighthawke]

Is this problem, providing for one's family, one that is strictly a plural marriage problem or is this a problem that is experienced by those in a monogamous marriage as well?

Well if you can't take care of one family, you sure shouldn't try to take care of five!

What if you were able to take care of your family/ies and then lost your job? The cattle froze to death? The crops were destroyed by drought and grasshoppers? What if there were too many immigrants and no jobs? What if one thought they were nicely established but everything fell apart a year later? Who can predict what the economy will be like from year to year? Nobody.

Even today no one can predict what the economy will be like. For example, I'm willing to bet if folks had known that gasoline prices were going to skyrocket many might not have purchased SUVs. How many families are pawning stuff/charging up their credit cards to fuel their cars today that were living quite comfortably only a few short months ago?

[truth dancer]

Hi KTG....

Well if you can't take care of one family, you sure shouldn't try to take care of five!

Yes! Seems there were plenty of young men for the young women to marry.

The idea of men having multiple women and families seems unwise if one can not even afford to cover the basics for one.

~dancer~

[Nisfor]

What if you were able to take care of your family/ies and then lost your job? The cattle froze to death? The crops were destroyed by drought and grasshoppers? What if there were too many immigrants and no jobs? What if one thought they were nicely established but everything fell apart a year later? Who can predict what the economy will be like from year to year? Nobody.

Oh! Oh! I know the answer! Pick me!

If they are LDS - then God is just testing them.

If they're not - then God is punishing them or attempting to demonstrate the error of their ways.

[fox_goku]

The problems with plural marriage are huge.  Think about it:

I'm not going to argue that the problems with plural marriage are huge, but I think you have some of your facts mixed up. I don't see any evidence of plural marriage causing a low birth rate. My gggrandfather's four plural wives each had 6--10 children. I do think there were instances of men having more wives than they could properly care for. I think Orson Pratt was one of them.

Here are some data: polygamous general authorities between 1830 and 1897 ( N = 41) had an average of 5.1 wives and 25.0 children. This means the average polygamous wife of a G.A. had 4.9 children.

The average Mormon monogamous wife (N = 15,880) for the same period of time had 6.6 children. (See Faux & Miller, 1984, Ethology & Sociobiology, 5, 15 - 31).

This is a cross-cultural effect. Polygamy reduces the overall birthrate.

[katherine the great]

What if you were able to take care of your family/ies and then lost your job? The cattle froze to death? The crops were destroyed by drought and grasshoppers? What if there were too many immigrants and no jobs? What if one thought they were nicely established but everything fell apart a year later? Who can predict what the economy will be like from year to year? Nobody.

Even today no one can predict what the economy will be like. For example, I'm willing to bet if folks had known that gasoline prices were going to skyrocket many might not have purchased SUVs. How many families are pawning stuff/charging up their credit cards to fuel their cars today that were living quite comfortably only a few short months ago?

All the more reason to have no more children than we can take care of.

[katherine the great]

Here are some data: polygamous general authorities between 1830 and 1897 ( N = 41) had an average of 5.1 wives and 25.0 children. This means the average polygamous wife of a G.A. had 4.9 children.

The average Mormon monogamous wife (N = 15,880) for the same period of time had 6.6 children. (See Faux & Miller, 1984, Ethology & Sociobiology, 5, 15 - 31).

This is a cross-cultural effect. Polygamy reduces the overall birthrate.

Okay. Although, as the mother of five children (and a believer in birth control) I'd have to give a point to the polygamists on that one!

[truth dancer]

Here are some data: polygamous general authorities between 1830 and 1897 ( N = 41) had an average of 5.1 wives and 25.0 children. This means the average polygamous wife of a G.A. had 4.9 children.

The average Mormon monogamous wife (N = 15,880) for the same period of time had 6.6 children. (See Faux & Miller, 1984, Ethology & Sociobiology, 5, 15 - 31).

This is a cross-cultural effect. Polygamy reduces the overall birthrate.

Yes, if a man is having sex with multiple women, the chance of impregnating each women goes down.

~dancer~

[1dc]

like how many are going to start looking for more wives..or are you just going to leave it to destiny (if it happens it happens)

8 pages for a simple question . . sorry I haven't read through them but was this asked and answered?

What is the difference? Even if one looked for wives they would still have destiny of the wife's decision, wouldn't they?

[beastie]

Polygamy didn't increase the general birth rate. It increased the number of children certain men produced.

[liz3564]

This is an extremely emotional topic for me because I have never understood the need for it or why it was commanded in the first place.

I am an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and have been a member all my life.

I'm married, 42, have three children.

In answer to the question......No, I could not practice it.

Plural marriage does not make sense to me. The only thing that I can see that it does is allow the men who practice it to have more children. How does it benefit women? Sorry, but I don't see an upside. In my mind, the practice seems very cruel and I've never understood it.

[liz3564]

I do have a question to piggy-back off of the original, for those who care to answer:

If polygamy were to be practiced again, what advantage would there be to women?

And...why do you think that God decided to command this in the first place? I have a hard time with this because I thought he had more respect for his daughters than this.

[truth dancer]

Hi Liz...

Plural marriage does not make sense to me. The only thing that I can see that it does is allow the men who practice it to have more children. How does it benefit women? Sorry, but I don't see an upside. In my mind, the practice seems very cruel and I've never understood it.

When I was a believing member I completely agreed with you.

I don't know if this will help but here is how I see it today from an evolutionary perspective.

Think back to our primate ancestors for a sec.... males in some species have a strategy for the continuation of their DNA to "spread their seed" with as many mates as possible. Others have evolved a sense of parental investment and a desire for feminine interaction.

I think humans have remnants of both strategies... some lean more to the "spread you seed" idea, others have a stronger sense of wanting to have a family, and invest time and energy in their offspring.

For females, there were two options in picking a mate... pick a strong, "alpha male" type and be pretty sure of having plenty of resources OR, pick a male that would help with the long term investment of making sure offspring would survive to adulthood.

For females who want the alpha male type and don't really care about emotional intimacy with a male, it is enough to have a sperm donor/resource provider. But for females who want a long term male partner, a desire for intimacy became dominant.

So, back to your question about polygamy, I think at one point in human development, when women were unable to gain resources on their own, some women benefited by hooking up with the alpha male, hence the harem. The rich and powerful males could provide for many women and the women had a sperm donor.

I think polygamy in the early days of the church had nothing to do with God's directives but I do think it can be explained through our evolutionary ancestry.

Just another thought... I think as more and more women are able to provide their own resources, more men will become invested in the care of their family which will be an amazing and wonderful development on our planet!

Just sharing....

~dancer~

[liz3564]

Hi Liz...

Plural marriage does not make sense to me. The only thing that I can see that it does is allow the men who practice it to have more children. How does it benefit women? Sorry, but I don't see an upside. In my mind, the practice seems very cruel and I've never understood it.

When I was a believing member I completely agreed with you.

I don't know if this will help but here is how I see it today from an evolutionary perspective.

Think back to our primate ancestors for a sec.... males in some species have a strategy for the continuation of their DNA to "spread their seed" with as many mates as possible. Others have evolved a sense of parental investment and a desire for feminine interaction.

I think humans have remnants of both strategies... some lean more to the "spread you seed" idea, others have a stronger sense of wanting to have a family, and invest time and energy in their offspring.

For females, there were two options in picking a mate... pick a strong, "alpha male" type and be pretty sure of having plenty of resources OR, pick a male that would help with the long term investment of making sure offspring would survive to adulthood.

For females who want the alpha male type and don't really care about emotional intimacy with a male, it is enough to have a sperm donor/resource provider. But for females who want a long term male partner, a desire for intimacy became dominant.

So, back to your question about polygamy, I think at one point in human development, when women were unable to gain resources on their own, some women benefited by hooking up with the alpha male, hence the harem. The rich and powerful males could provide for many women and the women had a sperm donor.

I think polygamy in the early days of the church had nothing to do with God's directives but I do think it can be explained through our evolutionary ancestory.

Just another thought... I think as more and more women are able to provide their own resources, more men will become invested in the care of their family which will be an amazing and wonderful development on our planet!

Just sharing....

~dancer~

Dear Truth Dancer,

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I suppose that my quandry has always been that since God is suppose to be the most "evolved" of all of us, why would this practice be something that is beneficial in His eyes?

Thank you again for your kind response!

Elizabeth

[Nighthawke]

I think polygamy in the early days of the church had nothing to do with God's directives but I do think it can be explained through our evolutionary ancestory.

By the way, there is scholarly literature, both LDS and non-LDS, that has been published about marriage mores including polygamy, since polygamy is simply just another form of marriage. Not a great deal of that research is currently available online and none of it, as truth dancer demonstrates, is available on a message board. What you will get on a message board, unless they provide documentation, are people's off the top of their head opinions, biases, assertions, derogatory remarks, humour, et cetera.

And the answer is no, I do not have a problem with evolution. I just disagree that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' practice of plural marriage can be "explained through our evolutionary ancestory[sic]."

[katherine the great]

I agree with Truth Dancer. The "alpha male" concept offers some advantage to plural marriage for the woman. In some cultural settings, it may be an advantage for a woman to share a spouse if the guy is incredibly desirable and no other guy can hold a candle. The person who probably receives the least benefit is the first wife which is why she would need to be supportive of the idea. Some women have expressed the desire to have a close relationship with another woman through sharing a spouse as well. I don't really see why that would enhance a close friendship, but some women seem to be fine with it. I have to agree with you Liz--I am not one of those women. I very much enjoy the intimacy of having my own spouse and not sharing that portion of my life with anyone else.