Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Why is polygamy such a hot-button topic?


liz3564

Recommended Posts

Posted

Del,

Question.

I'd like a little cultural exchange. If it's out of line, please let me know.

You mentioned that you were French. Here in the states, Europeans (and the French in particular) are known as being more liberal in terms of husbands having mistresses.

If we go back to onelowerlights premise of social conditioning, do you think that your attitudes toward PM are, at least in part, a result of your culture.

Also, I remember reading somewhere, that in the 1800s church a higher percentage of those who practiced PM were European immigrants. Hmmm...

Posted
The animal kingdom? After watching Animal Planet for a few months, I'm amazed and bemused at the crazy things that happen there :unsure: Some animals are pretty straight-forward machos, like the big cats, but some others are right little devils where marital life is concerned, especially on the female side <_<

Del

I was watching the National Geographic 30 years video my Mom got in the mail and there are these beetles in Africa and during matting season it takes three males chasing the larger woman down for things to happen. It takes two little males to hold her down while the other does the job. :P

Posted

Liz,

The hobby thing I can understand. Allowing my husband to find pleasure with another woman I have a harder time with.

Well Mines jealous of the love of-FAIR I got going on. :unsure:<_<:P:ph34r:

Posted
Liz,
The hobby thing I can understand. Allowing my husband to find pleasure with another woman I have a harder time with.

Well Mines jealous of the love of-FAIR I got going on. :blink::unsure::P:wub:

Uh oh.... :angry:

Better watch out or you'll end up sleeping in the dog house again! <_<:ph34r:

Posted
Hey onelowerlight,

I could be a smartie pants and just say this was your social conditioning... 

You could...but I've already admitted it, because it's more than a smartie pants comment, it's a factor that needs to be considered.

(actually, i'm not surprised at your take on polyandry. it seems most men would be prepared to dish but couldn't take it. that's not a flame, just an observation.

Like I said before, it's not a question of a double standard, it's a question of relevancy. If there are fundamental differences between the two, what's the use of even going there?

But since you insist, I will answer. It would be wierd for me at first (because of my social conditioning), but if I really believed in it, I'd probably be able to get over that part. The rest would mostly depend on the relationships I'd have with my brother-husbands. If we could be totally unified, then there's a chance it might work out.

Of course, the relationship I'd have with my wife would be very different than if she were my wife exclusively. But would it be different-bad - or just different? Since I do not believe polyandry to be a true doctrine, have never heard it taught or justified in the church, and have no testimony of the principle, I would say yes, it would be different-bad.

But if I believed God didn't frown on it, that it had been practiced by faithful members in the past, that some if not all had succeeded against the difficulties, then I would say, yes, it's different, but not necessarily different-good or different-bad; just different.

Posted
(alannasaunt @ May 16 2006, 11:35 AM)

Come on guys and gals... the Animal Kingdom show us the pattern. 1 Alpha Male and a heram. 

Zak,

You may not want to turn to the animal kingdom as an example. There are some females that kill the males after mating with them.

What about bees? There is the Queen Bee surrounded by all of the little drones and worker bees.

Hmmm...maybe Zak's right. We should look at the animal kingdom more!

Actually, in beehives, there are almost no males - the workers are all celibate females. The drones only mate once with one queen bee, and then die. The queen then leads the rest of her life without a partner, continually producing eggs from the momentary encounter with her first mate.

This is also true of ants and termites.

Posted

I personally unless called upon by G-d would never commit to that princple. But it is not a taught doctrine anymore as far as why it is a hot button issue is all the persicution that went on and misreprsintations I mean people thought Brigham young was some kind of sex pervet when some of the women he married where widows and it was more out of security then brother Young wanting to have a harim.

Posted
I personally unless called upon by G-d would never commit to that princple. But it is not a taught doctrine anymore as far as why it is a hot button issue is all the persicution that went on and misreprsintations I mean people thought Brigham young was some kind of sex pervet when some of the women he married where widows and it was more out of security then brother Young wanting to have a harim.

A man can still be sealed to more than one woman. A widower can remarry in the temple. A divorced (but still sealed) man can remarry in the temple. Men just hsve to wait until the CK now to live with them both.

Posted

When my mission Mom died she picked her Husbands next wife, which was her best friend who was a single mother with 6 kids to be his second wife.

Now thats Christ like love.

She was more worried about both of them going through this life alone than she was of the possibility of having to share them in the next life.

Posted

The European immigrants were mainly from Britain and Scandinavia, not exactly known at the time among the general population for their liberal attitudes toward extramarital affairs.

Many of the women came over with nothing, even at times with no father or family, and their best option for economic security at all would be to marry an already established man. I believe Kathryn Daynes' work covers this area.

I would have to see the data to see if there was a significant difference with the men as well as the women, but if so perhaps one reason would be having overturned their lives and sacrificed so much already for their God, it might not be so difficult to take another step. I see this as more likely than their social conditioning from that age except perhaps a certain pragmatism.

Posted
You mentioned that you were French. Here in the states, Europeans (and the French in particular) are known as being more liberal in terms of husbands having mistresses.

Hee-hee <_< We French are depraved sex addicts, everybody knows zat :P

If we go back to onelowerlights premise of social conditioning, do you think that your attitudes toward PM are, at least in part, a result of your culture.

Oooh! Good question! However, I would rather say that my culture might influence my view on marriage itself, not directly on plural marriage.

I'll sleep on that question, and I'll try to come back to it tomorrow, OK?

Del

Posted
Hee-hee biggrin.gif We French are depraved sex addicts, everybody knows zat tongue.gif

Theres a reason its called zee language of love. :P

Posted
You mentioned that you were French. Here in the states, Europeans (and the French in particular) are known as being more liberal in terms of husbands having mistresses.

Hee-hee :unsure: We French are depraved sex addicts, everybody knows zat :P

If we go back to onelowerlights premise of social conditioning, do you think that your attitudes toward PM are, at least in part, a result of your culture.

Oooh! Good question! However, I would rather say that my culture might influence my view on marriage itself, not directly on plural marriage.

I'll sleep on that question, and I'll try to come back to it tomorrow, OK?

Del

:ph34r::angry::blink:

Hey, I live in South Louisiana and at least a third of my ancestors were French. I have a little insight into this.

<_<

I look forward to your comments. Thanks.

Posted

Regarding my earlier comments. I don't know of a time when God ordained that two men should be sealed to one woman, and given that the only scriptural reason I have found for the Principle (Scriptural Polygyny) is the raising up of righteous posterity, the reverse situation doesn't fit.

However, as Liz stated her intent was to see how we would deal with the emotional impact of what women in our history have been asked to deal with. That's why I answered the way I did.

Strangely enough I have considered how this would feel to my wife.

A couple of personal post scripts from me on the subject. I may be a fool for sharing these in this forum, but I appreciate the reverence with which this subject has been broached, and I think it might be valuable insight into how I came to peace with the early Saints, and how what they did was commanded of a just and loving God.

I was not receptive to this idea of having another companion when my wife approached me with her revelations. I really didn't want to hear it. She is the love of my life, and I have never seriously considered (other than hypothetical discussions) having to accept the Principle myself.

When she told me she felt she wasn't going to survive some health problems that required surgery, I was faced with some very real fears and problems. As it turns out it was a test much like Abrahams sacrifice of Isaac, but at the time I did not know this, and every answer to my prayers indicated that I would have to endure a test of terrible weight.

I cursed the revelations and dug in my heels refusing to listen. This separated me from the source of light and peace that I had known since I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior years ago. I could not have remained a faithful disciple of Christ, and openly defied the source of my knowledge of Him at the same time. It was time for me to consider some tough realities. It was not until much counsel with my wife and a wise Priesthood leader, and a great deal of time considering carefully these revelations that I came to any kind of peace. I read with great interest the stories and journals of those who struggled with these revelations in the 1800's. This "understanding" of mine is not due to some great wisdom on my part. It was bought with a lot of study, prayer and tears.

The most profound thing I learned about muself is that I love my wife above all else, and that God allows me to love her this much. But in the end I must place God's will above even that which I love the most, in order not to separate myself from Him. In the intervening years I've pondered why, and I think the answer has to do with, as important as our spouse is to us, only God can provide our Salvation and Exaltation- so we must trust Him above all else. God is a jealous God for our own good.

One note about the Priesthood counsel I received. His response was one of the wisest things I've ever heard on the subject. "Unless God has asked you to act on this revelation, have peace that it may not be something you have to do today. My own wife went through a cancer scare, and I received similar revelation at the time. What I learned is that we may have our spouse for a day, or for 100 more years, but that we should treasure any time we have with them while we can."

I am at peace with both possibilities, me being a monogomist or a polygamist in the eternities. I am much more appreciative of my wife now than I ever have been, and I mostly remember to honor her as I should. If she should ever be called from me, I will honor her counsel and take someone into our family that will also honor her and her children.

Most importanly I have come to understand, while God's ways are not my ways, they are wise, we can receive personal understanding if we are willing to learn, and that in the end, if we follow Him, He will lead us and our loved ones to return home to be with Him.

Posted

I only have one question.... When Mr Jeffries and his polygomus wives are dead and buried. And, their names are submitted for temple work will he be sealed to all the women he married? If so, I guess he's got the last laugh...

Posted
I only have one question.... When Mr Jeffries and his polygomus wives are dead and buried. And, their names are submitted for temple work will he be sealed to all the women he married? If so, I guess he's got the last laugh...

I started doing the genealogy work on my mother's side about 15 years ago. After I had submitted several hundred names and had the work done, I was showing her the paper work. She saw one of the couples (I think they were from her grandfather's generation). She told me that the husband had been committed horrible physical abuse against his wife for years. I had already had them sealed. Do I believe that this woman will be required to spend eternity with a man who tormented and tortured her...no.

Do I believe that Jeffries will be rewarded for his abusive and unrighteous behavior...no. Just because I provided the opportunity for these two people to accept the temple work doesn't mean they will (or have to).

Posted

Dadof7,

All I can say is ...wow! I think we had a very good discussion before, but this definitely adds new dimension to perspective you presented.

As to the polyandry, obviously it isn't something we would be called to in mortality. As onelowerlight said, there's the "Who's your Daddy?" problem.

However, I can see where young women who became widows early in life, then remarried and had children would want to have her second family as well.

Posted
I only have one question.... When Mr Jeffries and his polygomus wives are dead and buried.  And, their names are submitted for temple work will he be sealed to all the women he married?  If so, I guess he's got the last laugh...

I started doing the genealogy work on my mother's side about 15 years ago. After I had submitted several hundred names and had the work done, I was showing her the paper work. She saw one of the couples (I think they were from her grandfather's generation). She told me that the husband had been committed horrible physical abuse against his wife for years. I had already had them sealed. Do I believe that this woman will be required to spend eternity with a man who tormented and tortured her...no.

Do I believe that Jeffries will be rewarded for his abusive and unrighteous behavior...no. Just because I provided the opportunity for these two people to accept the temple work doesn't mean they will (or have to).

Amen! There is a huge difference between participating in an ordinance (by self or by proxy) and honoring the covenants associated with that ordinance. The ordinance itself has no power unless the covenants associated with it are kept faithfully.

ALthough, among my friends who's husbands were disloyal to them ending in divorce, there are many who would gladly accept a repentant husband back.

Regarding those who are sealed, widowed early and then remarry to a good man... Two men who love, honor and cherish a woman, through no fault of their own are seperated from her. Believing in a just God that seeks our joy, I have to believe that there is a solution that would be satisfactory to everyone involved. What form that would take, I cannot fathom.

It really gets me questioning what capacity our hearts have to love unselfishly, and to adapt to situations we did not bargain for. My wife for one has been an incredible example of this.

Posted

Dad, I appreciate your story and the trust you have in us to open up and share it. I think all five of us (Dadof7, Allanasaunt, Liz3564, Del March, and me) who have been most active on this thread have opened up considerably in sharing our deepest thoughts and experiences, and it's been a wonderful thing to participate.

Posted
I only have one question.... When Mr Jeffries and his polygomus wives are dead and buried. And, their names are submitted for temple work will he be sealed to all the women he married? If so, I guess he's got the last laugh...

The perfect answer for this can be found in D&C 132 itself. Verse 7 discusses the Holy Ghost as He operates in His role as the Holy Spirit of Promise. Basically, any ordinance that is performed here on earth is of no validity until the Holy Ghost puts His seal of approval on the whole thing. Therefore, even if Jeffries were to get a grand conspiracy going and have a real temple sealer, with the proper priesthood authority, seal him to his wives in the temple, it would be of no force because you can't fool God.

D&C is actually a very diplomatic and carefully constructed revelation. It anticipates most of the concerns people may have with the doctrine of plural marriage and teaches it in such a way that these concerns are addressed. If you can see that as you read it, D&C 132 itself may help resolve some of the concerns about polygamy.

Posted
If you can see that as you read it, D&C 132 itself may help resolve some of the concerns about polygamy.

One of my concerns regarding D&C 132...and forgive me ahead of time because I'm at work and don't have scriptures easily available so this is not an exact quote...is that Heavenly Father states that if Emma refuses to accept Joseph entering into polygamy that she will be destroyed.

That doesn't allow for agency or choice.

Obviously, Emma wanted to do the right thing. It is obvious that she supported Joseph and loved the Lord. Her choice was either to accept it or be destroyed.

I think this scripture is what has caused the most angst for me...and, I believe for Allannasaunt as well. This negates the idea that there is really choice involved for the first wife approving of other wives.

onelowerlight Posted on May 16 2006, 11:01 PM

  Dad, I appreciate your story and the trust you have in us to open up and share it. I think all five of us (Dadof7, Allanasaunt, Liz3564, Del March, and me) who have been most active on this thread have opened up considerably in sharing our deepest thoughts and experiences, and it's been a wonderful thing to participate.

I want to add my thanks to everyone who has participated in the thread. I think that, as Dadof7 put it in an earlier comment, this is one of the most reverent threads regarding polygamy I have ever seen. I really appreciate everyone's maturity and ability to discuss different sides of the issue without getting into a huge judging fest and bashing each other. It has really been an inspirational thread. Thank you for that.

Posted
One of my concerns regarding D&C 132...is that Heavenly Father states that if Emma refuses to accept Joseph entering into polygamy that she will be destroyed.

That doesn't allow for agency or choice.

Obviously, Emma wanted to do the right thing. It is obvious that she supported Joseph and loved the Lord. Her choice was either to accept it or be destroyed.

What do you think "destroyed" in this verse means?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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