Why is polygamy such a hot-button topic?

[liz3564]

I haven't eliminated it as a possibility, but it does seem less likely given the rules governing sealings, and the purpose of plural marriage as defined by our doctrines in the first place.

Maybe you can help me, Dadof7. I think this is something that Allana and I have both struggled with. What is the purpose of plural marriage?

If the purpose of plural marriage is strictly to "raise up more seed to God", then it "goes against my grain" on two points.

1. I consider myself more than just a baby machine, and I would hope that the Lord would as well. My children give me great joy, but they are only a part of who I am as a person...and I hope that my daughters feel the same way about themselves.

2. As you pointed out regarding biological differences, men can impregnate multiple women while a woman can only have one (maybe two or three in rare cases) child every 9 months. Allana made the comment earlier in the thread and I see where she's coming from: Why should we as women be penalized for our biology? And, more importantly, why are we since God created us this way?

I know I'm going to be jumped all over for asking these questions. Let me clarify a couple of things before I am "attacked". I am not some kind of "Nazi feminist". I enjoy being female. I do understand that men and women are "equal but different" in the eyes of the Lord and that we have different purposes. However, I am also educated. I enjoy my career in teaching and using my mind. My husband and I have an equal partnership in our marriage and there are leadership attributes we each have in different areas that we utilize. And, I don't think that I would have been given these talents by my Heavenly Father if He didn't want me to use them.

[alannasaunt]

I think it's odd that, in general (with some exceptions like dad0f7) people in the church will struggle to accept plural wives, but instead of struggling to accept polyandry, struggle to find a way to eliminate it as even a possibility.

I'm gonna sound like I'm arguing with myself here, but I think Polyandry is a much less likely scenario. I have sought to understand how my wife might feel about polygyny, so I am empathetic, but I do think it's more likely because of the biological differences, and the purpose of the Principle being (as I understand it) to increase righteous posterity.

I haven't eliminated it as a possibility, but it does seem less likely given the rules governing sealings, and the purpose of plural marriage as defined by our doctrines in the first place.

Polyandry, for the purpose of raising up a righteous seed, obviously wouldn't work in an earthly situation.

I believe that if a woman would truly fill the role of wife to two men, it could only be in the CK. Then I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work. There would not be the "who's your daddy?" problem (onelowerlight - i like that phrase - it's cute).

Also, time would not have the limiting factors that it does now.

Polyandry, in the CK, would also bring a measure of justice to this whole thing. One of my sisters was widowed at 23 with 2 small children. She went on to remarry. That was almost 20 years ago. Why should she be limited to only having one of them. Her first husband wouldn't have had that limitation had the situation been reversed. Also, why should subsequent husbands loose out on having their spouses when subsequent wives would not.

[alannasaunt]

I haven't eliminated it as a possibility, but it does seem less likely given the rules governing sealings, and the purpose of plural marriage as defined by our doctrines in the first place.

Maybe you can help me, Dadof7. I think this is something that Allana and I have both struggled with. What is the purpose of plural marriage?

If the purpose of plural marriage is strictly to "raise up more seed to God", then it "goes against my grain" on two points.

1. I consider myself more than just a baby machine, and I would hope that the Lord would as well. My children give me great joy, but they are only a part of who I am as a person...and I hope that my daughters feel the same way about themselves.

2. As you pointed out regarding biological differences, men can impregnate multiple women while a woman can only have one (maybe two or three in rare cases) child every 9 months. Allana made the comment earlier in the thread and I see where she's coming from: Why should we as women be penalized for our biology? And, more importantly, why are we since God created us this way?

I know I'm going to be jumped all over for asking these questions. Let me clarify a couple of things before I am "attacked". I am not some kind of "Nazi feminist". I enjoy being female. I do understand that men and women are "equal but different" in the eyes of the Lord and that we have different purposes. However, I am also educated. I enjoy my career in teaching and using my mind. My husband and I have an equal partnership in our marriage and there are leadership attributes we each have in different areas that we utilize. And, I don't think that I would have been given these talents by my Heavenly Father if He didn't want me to use them.

I hear ya, sis!

[onelowerlight]

I am not some kind of "Nazi feminist".

NOOOOOO!!!!!!! Don't mention Nazism in this thread, or it'll get shut down!

ok, seriously:

Maybe you can help me, Dadof7. I think this is something that Allana and I have both struggled with. What is the purpose of plural marriage?

Well, this is kind of a logical, non-spiritual way of thinking about it, but what are the odds that in the day of judgement, the number of men who meet all the criteria for the first degree of the celestial kingdom (not including the eternal marriage component) is going to be exactly equal to the number of women who meet the criteria? If celestial marriage is a prerequisite for the highest degree, then the only way a purely monogamous Plan of Salvation would work would be if the number of Men in the highest degree is perfectly equal to the number of women. And what are the odds of THAT???

That may not be the whole story, but it's one way of thinking about it that gets beyond the biological reasoning. The reasoning is that, since we all know that Women are naturally ten times more spiritual and heavenly than men, God wouldn't be fair if he didn't allow for plural marriage in the eternities.

Why should we as women be penalized for our biology? And, more importantly, why are we since God created us this way?

It's only penalization if you choose to look at it that way. From another side, it's a great blessing and opportunity. On the road to celestial glory, it's not unfrequent for travellers to experience major changes in their perspective, as many converts will attest.

[Nighthawke]

*On her deathbed, Sylvia Sessions did tell her daughter, Josephine, that Joseph Smith was her real father, not Windsor Lyon.

Except that Sylvia Sessions never said, "not Windsor Lyon."

Daynes writes that there are two interpretations to Josephine Fisher's affidavit (which I've highlighted in blue below):

While plural marriage linked families in an eternal bond that was necessary "for their exaltation in the eternal worlds," Joseph Smith's counseling Kimball to marry a fecund woman is consonant with a second reason for plural marriage: "to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment."(62) Plural marriage thus had two major purposes, only one of which involved sexuality. Some historians have assumed that because some plural marriages involved sexuality, probably most, if not all, did so, a conclusion that goes beyond documentary evidence.(63) That is particularly the case in the Nauvoo period. Although contemporary evidence is amply sufficient to establish that plural marriage was practiced in Nauvoo, most of the evidence about the quality of those marriages comes from documents produced later

[liz3564]

That may not be the whole story, but it's one way of thinking about it that gets beyond the biological reasoning. The reasoning is that, since we all know that Women are naturally ten times more spiritual and heavenly than men, God wouldn't be fair if he didn't allow for plural marriage in the eternities.

Why should we as women be penalized for our biology? And, more importantly, why are we since God created us this way?

It's only penalization if you choose to look at it that way. From another side, it's a great blessing and opportunity. On the road to celestial glory, it's not unfrequent for travellers to experience major changes in their perspective, as many converts will attest.

You know, I always hear men say this. It's a sweet sentiment, but why are you assuming this?

OK....what happens if there ARE more men worthy to go into the Celestial Kingdom than women? Then what? Polyandry?

It's only penalization if you choose to look at it that way.  From another side, it's a great blessing and opportunity.  On the road to celestial glory, it's not unfrequent for travellers to experience major changes in their perspective, as many converts will attest.

And again, as I've stated before, maybe this is the best way to look at this. Basically, take the attitude that we live our lives the best we can now, and "it will all make more sense in the next life". It's a very pat way to look at things, and I'm not downing it.

I guess maybe I just have more of an inquisitive mind than is for my own good! LOL

[alannasaunt]

I am not some kind of "Nazi feminist".

NOOOOOO!!!!!!! Don't mention Nazism in this thread, or it'll get shut down!

ok, seriously:

Maybe you can help me, Dadof7. I think this is something that Allana and I have both struggled with. What is the purpose of plural marriage?

Well, this is kind of a logical, non-spiritual way of thinking about it, but what are the odds that in the day of judgement, the number of men who meet all the criteria for the first degree of the celestial kingdom (not including the eternal marriage component) is going to be exactly equal to the number of women who meet the criteria? If celestial marriage is a prerequisite for the highest degree, then the only way a purely monogamous Plan of Salvation would work would be if the number of Men in the highest degree is perfectly equal to the number of women. And what are the odds of THAT???

That may not be the whole story, but it's one way of thinking about it that gets beyond the biological reasoning. The reasoning is that, since we all know that Women are naturally ten times more spiritual and heavenly than men, God wouldn't be fair if he didn't allow for plural marriage in the eternities.

Why should we as women be penalized for our biology? And, more importantly, why are we since God created us this way?

It's only penalization if you choose to look at it that way. From another side, it's a great blessing and opportunity. On the road to celestial glory, it's not unfrequent for travellers to experience major changes in their perspective, as many converts will attest.

As far as equal numbers...maybe that is why males have a higher infant mortality rate. God may be making sure they're available for the CK ladies.

Women being so much more spiritual than men...hmmm...I don't know about that. We're different for sure, but not necessarily better.

Feeling penalized for having a female biology is not just a matter of perspective. Psychologically I believe we (women, most anyway) are created to be monogamous by nature.

It isn't disputable to say we were created in such a way that it takes us much longer to produce a child than it takes a man. I believe God could have made us more equal in this respect had he chosen to. So, what was the purpose of this disparity?

We are not saying that being women/mothers/wives is the penalty. Those are indeed great blessings. Having those blessings in a solid, monogamous marriage is the greatest blessing a woman could aspire to.

Having our biology used as the excuse to take away our monogamous marriages is the penalty.

[liz3564]

*On her deathbed, Sylvia Sessions did tell her daughter, Josephine, that Joseph Smith was her real father, not Windsor Lyon.

Except that Sylvia Sessions never said, "not Windsor Lyon."

Daynes writes that there are two interpretations to Josephine Fisher's affidavit (which I've highlighted in blue below):

While plural marriage linked families in an eternal bond that was necessary "for their exaltation in the eternal worlds," Joseph Smith's counseling Kimball to marry a fecund woman is consonant with a second reason for plural marriage: "to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment."(62) Plural marriage thus had two major purposes, only one of which involved sexuality. Some historians have assumed that because some plural marriages involved sexuality, probably most, if not all, did so, a conclusion that goes beyond documentary evidence.(63) That is particularly the case in the Nauvoo period. Although contemporary evidence is amply sufficient to establish that plural marriage was practiced in Nauvoo, most of the evidence about the quality of those marriages comes from documents produced later

[liz3564]

Having our biology used as the excuse to take away our monogamous marriages is the penalty.

Thank you!

[KevinG]

Now we're in the nitty gritty of it. Ha!

The bilogical stuff is "unfair" in both directions. My wife had to suffer pregnancies and wait 9 months for a baby to be made. On the other hand I will never know the joy she describes to me, being able to create a whole human being with her own body. She calls the family her "Magnum Opus" and it doesn't just end with having babies- a great posterity is only created by raising those children together as a team, with both sacrificing somewhat important things for what is most important to us.

She sacraficed a possible college degree to marry me (she claims it's worth it - and I keep offering to send her back once the children are out of the house ) but I have sacraficed a long dreamed of career as a music teacher to go into business, so I could provide for a large family (and several layoffs later - oh well?). We both sacrafice our personal lives right now for the sake of raising the kids, but even this is temporary. Even with mortal time limitations, we will have time to persue our own interests, just not all at once.

The great posterity is a gift only if it is a shared joy, not just something a woman should sacrifice for a man, or vice versa.

The real irony here is under a polygamous system adults would have an easier time playing tag team, and persuing outside interests, without asking the kids to sacrifice full time parents.

You sort of have to understand our perspective on this. My wife cried bitter tears when she found out her body would not allow her to have more children (even though she'd already had 7 living). I never insisted she have any, it was always her perogative, but she revels in bringing forth life and nurturing it. Since the babies stopped coming there have been countless flowers and trees, two cats and two dogs added to our family. Creating and nurturing life is her greatest gift and joy. It is my duty to insure she can do so, and still have her needs and wants met.

I think it's a great shame that men often think their only role is to provide for the family, and that they derive their primariy identity in their career. It leads to a lot of heartache and imbalance. I'd say more about the role of a father, but I'm supposed to be editing that part of my book today, not rewriting it here

P.S. I don't really subscribe to the more available women in the Celestial Kingdom theory. And I don't consider the gifts men and women are born with superior or inferior to each other. They do work best in tandem.

[onelowerlight]

You know, I always hear men say this. It's a sweet sentiment, but why are you assuming this?

Because so much of the crap that goes on in this world is caused by men, not women.

Which gender, after all, has been driving the modern pornography epidemic?

How many more gangs have been started and run by men as opposed to women?

How many more murders do you see being committed by men, not women?

Which gender commits the most domestic abuse?

Why is it women, and not men, that have traditionally been used in the world's oldest industry - prostitution?

I'm not saying that men are inherently bad. I'm just recognizing that more of the social and moral problems in this world can be traced to men, not women. So, it's not just flattery to say that there have probably been more righteous women in the history of the world than men.

[liz3564]

The real irony here is under a polygamous system adults would have an easier time playing tag team, and persuing outside interests, without asking the kids to sacrifice full time parents.

But the kids would be sacrificing full-time parents. This is where I really don't "get" the difference between leaving your child with a family member or a "sister wife" while you go to work. That sister-wife is not "Mommy" to that child. She never will be. Only I am that child's Mommy...and I don't want that to change! Now, do I feel a lot more comfortable leaving my child with Grandma or Aunt so and so than a stranger. Of course! Is there more of an ease of connection there than with a stranger? Again, yes! But I don't need to be in a polygamous relationship to have that advantage.

BTW....I am in no way downing the rest of what you stated. I just wanted to focus on that one particular point. I am so grateful that you are one of the few men out there who really have an understanding of what women go through and are supportive. I'm also impressed by the seriousness you take and the pride you feel in being a father. Your wife is very lucky to have you. She's trained you well!

[charity]

The biology of the female is a penalty talk irritates me. We have been told that agency is an eternal principle. At some point, we don't know how this works, intelligence was given spirit form, which included a gender identity. By extension, then, at some point, we each made a choice to be either male or female.

So, we asked for it, ladies! I'm happy with my choice.

[KevinG]

The real irony here is under a polygamous system adults would have an easier time playing tag team, and persuing outside interests, without asking the kids to sacrifice full time parents.

But the kids would be sacrificing full-time parents. This is where I really don't "get" the difference between leaving your child with a family member or a "sister wife" while you go to work. That sister-wife is not "Mommy" to that child. She never will be. Only I am that child's Mommy...and I don't want that to change! Now, do I feel a lot more comfortable leaving my child with Grandma or Aunt so and so than a stranger. Of course! Is there more of an ease of connection there than with a stranger? Again, yes! But I don't need to be in a polygamous relationship to have that advantage.

I'm not suggesting that mommies are interchangeable, they are not. My extra time at home between full time jobs however, has taught me that a close family member is a wonderful thing to have at home if the other parent has duties or interests outside the home. I think the parallel to an aunt or grandparent is a good one.

While I don't subscribe to the more righteous women than men theory, I do have to say that the number of single mom's struggling to raise their kids far outweighs the number of single Dad's I know.

Your wife is very lucky to have you.

[liz3564]

The biology of the female is a penalty talk irritates me. We have been told that agency is an eternal principle.

[onelowerlight]

Yay! Post #100!

I have a question about what you said, Charity. It's a fascinating idea to think that we chose our gender in the premortal existence - but what evidence is there to back that up? Do you have any scriptures or conference talks? Because I've always assumed that gender identity was just a part of who we are. Also, some of the implications of this gender-choosing doctrine might not play out so well.

About the questions about the purposes in plural marriage, it's an interesting thing to think about, something where I myself don't have any for sure answers. However, I don't think that this has to be a stumbling block for anyone. How many times have people in the scriptures been commanded to do perfectly rational things without understanding the reasons behind it? Mormon kept the small plates with the record, Adam made sacrifices without knowing they were types of Christ, and Abraham willingly offered his son against all logic and reason, etc.

So really, although I don't think it's wrong to wonder "why polygamy?," I think it would be wrong to demand an answer to this question before putting full faith in the Restored Gospel. Not that I don't think any of you participants are doing this, but I know that many people, perhaps some of the lurkers, do do this.

[liz3564]

Ha! That's the line we use on the kids when they complain about hardships in the family. Hey you chose to come here and be inour family, so get over it! (It is said in jest and only when they are being slightly bratty, we don't use it address serious issues).

For the record...we use that one on our kids, too!

[alannasaunt]

Now we're in the nitty gritty of it. Ha!

The bilogical stuff is "unfair" in both directions. My wife had to suffer pregnancies and wait 9 months for a baby to be made. On the other hand I will never know the joy she describes to me, being able to create a whole human being with her own body. She calls the family her "Magnum Opus" and it doesn't just end with having babies- a great posterity is only created by raising those children together as a team, with both sacrificing somewhat important things for what is most important to us.

She sacraficed a possible college degree to marry me (she claims it's worth it - and I keep offering to send her back once the children are out of the house ) but I have sacraficed a long dreamed of career as a music teacher to go into business, so I could provide for a large family (and several layoffs later - oh well?). We both sacrafice our personal lives right now for the sake of raising the kids, but even this is temporary. Even with mortal time limitations, we will have time to persue our own interests, just not all at once.

The great posterity is a gift only if it is a shared joy, not just something a woman should sacrifice for a man, or vice versa.

The real irony here is under a polygamous system adults would have an easier time playing tag team, and persuing outside interests, without asking the kids to sacrifice full time parents.

You sort of have to understand our perspective on this. My wife cried bitter tears when she found out her body would not allow her to have more children (even though she'd already had 7 living). I never insisted she have any, it was always her perogative, but she revels in bringing forth life and nurturing it. Since the babies stopped coming there have been countless flowers and trees, two cats and two dogs added to our family. Creating and nurturing life is her greatest gift and joy. It is my duty to insure she can do so, and still have her needs and wants met.

I think it's a great shame that men often think their only role is to provide for the family, and that they derive their primariy identity in their career. It leads to a lot of heartache and imbalance. I'd say more about the role of a father, but I'm supposed to be editing that part of my book today, not rewriting it here

P.S. I don't really subscribe to the more available women in the Celestial Kingdom theory. And I don't consider the gifts men and women are born with superior or inferior to each other. They do work best in tandem.

Dadof7, you have no idea how many women would love to have men experience child birth....the only problem is, we're too worried that the population would cease to exist after one generation.

Having to let my husband shag other women is a pretty high price to pay for a few outside interests.

I do agree with you about the creative and nurturing role of women. I'm also guilty as charged. It's also a beautiful thing when I see men really being Dads to their kids. I just melt when I see a man holding a baby.

[KevinG]

Why does it (Polygamy) seem to so inherently "go against the grain" of so many of us?

That is really at the heart of the whole discussion. If it is of men and not of God than your feelings may come from the Holy Spirit, and they are justified. If it is of God, than those feelings are probably a result of the culture we live in, conditioning as it were, and will eventually need to be overcome to the point at which you can accept the Principle as God's law.

The answer to that big question is an individual one, and I believe it can be answered by God, and you have the right to ask it of Him. After all the reasoning and explaining in the world, it is still your perogative to get your own answer to those big questions. The condition is that we are willing to act according to what we know, and that is why some of these questions are so hard to really seek answers too.

But that is the ultimate struggle for me. Learning to separate my own biases and weaknesses from God's promptings and have the humility to accept His will, even when it seems foreign to my mortal mind.

Dadof7, you have no idea how many women would love to have men experience child birth....the only problem is, we're too worried that the population would cease to exist after one generation.   

Touche!

[alannasaunt]

The biology of the female is a penalty talk irritates me. We have been told that agency is an eternal principle. At some point, we don't know how this works, intelligence was given spirit form, which included a gender identity. By extension, then, at some point, we each made a choice to be either male or female.

So, we asked for it, ladies! I'm happy with my choice.

This is not my understanding. I have been told that our gender was an inherent part of our intelligence. We did not choose it.

I want to reiterate, liz and I are not saying we're unhappy being women.

[liz3564]

Why does it (Polygamy) seem to so inherently "go against the grain" of so many of us?

That is really at the heart of the whole discussion. If it is of men and not of God than your feelings may come from the Holy Spirit, and they are justified. If it is of God, than those feelings are probably a result of the culture we live in, conditioning as it were, and will eventually need to be overcome to the point at which you can accept the Principle as God's law.

The answer to that big question is an individual one, and I believe it can be answered by God, and you have the right to ask it of Him. After all the reasoning and explaining in the world, it is still your perogative to get your own answer to those big questions. The condition is that we are willing to act according to what we know, and that is why some of these questions are so hard to really seek answers too.

But that is the ultimate struggle for me. Learning to separate my own biases and weaknesses from God's promptings and have the humility to accept His will, even when it seems foreign to my mortal mind.

Dadof7, you have no idea how many women would love to have men experience child birth....the only problem is, we're too worried that the population would cease to exist after one generation.

[Nighthawke]

That sister-wife is not "Mommy" to that child.  She never will be.  Only I am that child's Mommy...and I don't want that to change!

Well it looks like your choice would have been to not enter into the principle, an average of 70-80 percent never did, it was always a minority of the Saints who practised the principle. Or, as many plural families did, you would have entered the principle and found a way that worked for you likely after trial and error--keeping in mind that trial in error is part and parcel of monogamous marriage as well.

As this study has shown, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints decided to go into polygamy based on religious belief. They would not have considered living the principle if they had not telt that they would be blessed and receive rewards in an afterlife. The ability to overcome problems of husbands dealing with more than one wife, wives dealing with co-wives, and children dealing with an extended family was possible because of that same faith. Religious motivations enabled them to deal with or suppress expected jealousies and disagreements that would occur in any family, especially where there were more than one wife.

Although those practicing polygamy were religiously motivated, their beliefs did not tell them how to lead daily lives. Unlike African societies who have practiced polygyny for generations, the Mormons did not have set procedures on how the husband and wife, the wives, and the children should relate to each other. Although the families had no societal traditions to fall back on, they were able to adapt most of the Euro-American monogamous traditions to their new life-style. Relationships varied depending on the family. In some cases they were very close, and wives related to each other as sisters and children considered their fathers' other wives' children as brothers and sisters. In other cases where the wives were different ages, they were almost like mothers and daughters. And sometimes they did not interact at all. The relationships between husbands and wives usually determined how the children in the different polygamous families got along. With no rules, each family established its own, so there was not a "typical" Mormon polygamous family. While some were very unhappy, most seemed to have gotten along very well.

- Jessie L. Embry, Mormon Polygamous Families: Life in the Principle, p. 193.

[batjerk]

And...if that is indeed the case...why does it seem to so inherently "go against the grain" of so many of us?

...

Was it designed that way to be the ultimate trial for many of us to overcome?

Why is it that so many of God's commands "go against the grain" of so many of us?

"The natural man is an enemy to God."

Since plural marriage isn't currently practiced and hasn't been for a long time, I think we would be really hard-pressed to understand it. Much like we are hard-pressed to understand the United Order. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that plural marriage wasn't being practiced correctly while it was, just as living in the United Order wasn't. Perhaps that is why it was taken away.

Being so far removed from something as radically different from our culture as this really makes for difficult understanding and even more difficult living. It is a ripe environment for misunderstanding and perversion. Practicing it the wrong way becomes a very easy thing. Again, I liken it to the United Order.

Being a very capitalist society, and a very selfish one, it is easy to understand how difficult it was to try to live in the United Order. It was a completely unfamiliar thing and it got people into trouble. It was taken from us because we couldn't do it.

[alannasaunt]

While I don't subscribe to the more righteous women than men theory, I do have to say that the number of single mom's struggling to raise their kids far outweighs the number of single Dad's I know.

True, but our current legal/welfare system has much to do with this. So, it's not completely a righteousness issue unless you consider the righteousness of the politicians/bureaucrats who make the rules.

I'll quit now...no more politics.

My theory is that men can't tolerate pain, so you were kind enough to volunteer to be women, periods, birth and all. 

Now, this is true. Guys do turn into big babies when they get an ouchie. I just makes us love 'em more, cause then we get another chance to be the caregiver.

[KevinG]

It's been kind of a humorous undercurrent here, but I do want to address one thing.

A man who is attracted to polygamy because it provides additional sex partners would be somewhere around "rutting pig" in the evolutionary ladder.

A man who understands that God has asked Him to be a steward over many households, and as loyal and supportive of two or more of His daughters as he is of one, with all the sensitivity and work that entails, is going to first be a superior model of a monogamist. He will not find the idea entertaining, but more likely he will struggle with it as much as a woman would.

It is a great responsibility to serve a daughter of God, and that responsibility is not diminished one whit if it involves serving two of them:

Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.