Why is polygamy such a hot-button topic?

[marylovesjaffacakes]

This might be a huge generalisation but it seems to me that it's mainly Americans who think that polygamy will again arise. Growing up in Australia, my family (which included several stake presidents and lots of relief society presidents and bishops), alwys talked as if polygamy was never the best situation and that if God authorised it , t would only be in rare circumstances. None of them felt that they would ever have to practice this principle in this life or the next, unless of course a wife died and they married again. They felt that this was perfectly consistent with modern lds theology. And I gotta say most of the single lds women i know would rather stay single in the next life with a reduction in blessings if the alternative is being shared withb a man. And i gotta say that most of the men i know, don"t find Polygamy attractive either, what does a man have to gain from this environment other than the obvious, and i cant't imagine that a man who truly lobves his wife would find that aspect appealing either. But then again maybe my mind is just not enlightened enough

[alannasaunt]

This might be a huge generalisation but it seems to me that it's mainly Americans who think that polygamy will again arise. Growing up in Australia, my family (which included several stake presidents and lots of relief society presidents and bishops), alwys talked as if polygamy was never the best situation and that if God authorised it , t would only be in rare circumstances. None of them felt that they would ever have to practice this principle in this life or the next, unless of course a wife died and they married again. They felt that this was perfectly consistent with modern lds theology. And I gotta say most of the single lds women i know would rather stay single in the next life with a reduction in blessings if the alternative is being shared withb a man. And i gotta say that most of the men i know, don"t find Polygamy attractive either, what does a man have to gain from this environment other than the obvious, and i cant't imagine that a man who truly lobves his wife would find that aspect appealing either. But then again maybe my mind is just not enlightened enough

Hi marylovesjaffacakes,

I think most people believe it will come back is because of Isaiah 4:1:

"And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by they name, to take away our reproach."

The header for that chapter says:

"Zion and her daughters shall be redeemed and cleansed in the Millenial day - Compare 2 Nephi 14."

BTW, love your name...but, what's a jaffa cake?

[1dc]

Enough to not only compensate for, but put into deficit, the 35 million excess?

Depends on how many female children are killed or allowed to die by their parents as seen in China and elsewhere due to cultural and economic reasoning . . . seems like 35 mil would be a drop in the bucket . . . (I'm only catching this thread about every 10 pages or so)

[Observer]

the real reason why polygamy is a hot button topic is because 1. it requires the most Christlike attributes to live, and 2. because Satanic tries to cheapen and degrade the most holy principles. And to the degree that many, if not most people, focus on the sexual relationship aspect, he succeeds.

Charity, let me get this straight:

1. The way that I can be most Christlike is to have more than one wife? Is that correct?

2. Any questions or concerns regarding the morality of plural marriage are based primarily on promptings from Satan?

Does this mean that the FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) sect is the most Christlike and the rest of the FLDS-accusing and polygamy-attacking world (currently including the LDS - focusing on the sexual relationships) is driven entirely entirely by "Satanic" temptation?

So how does the world look from behind those black and white lenses anyway?

[onelowerlight]

QUOTE (charity @ May 18 2006, 08:12 PM)

the real reason why polygamy is a hot button topic is because 1. it requires the most Christlike attributes to live, and 2. because Satanic tries to cheapen and degrade the most holy principles. And to the degree that many, if not most people, focus on the sexual relationship aspect, he succeeds. 

Charity, let me get this straight:

1. The way that I can be most Christlike is to have more than one wife? Is that correct?

2. Any questions or concerns regarding the morality of plural marriage are based primarily on promptings from Satan?

Does this mean that the FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) sect is the most Christlike and the rest of the FLDS-accusing and polygamy-attacking world (currently including the LDS - focusing on the sexual relationships) is driven entirely entirely by "Satanic" temptation?

So how does the world look from behind those black and white lenses anyway?

I see we have left quite an enormous amount of discussion on this thread for the average reader to sift through. I think that some clarification can be found in what has been discussed previously.

However, to answer quickly (since it's 12:42 AM where I am), about the FLDS church, we all agree that the only way plural marriage could only be practiced legitimately if it were endorsed unanimously by the first presidency and quorum of the twelve. Without that authorization, the practice goes directly against Christ's wishes and cannot be Christlike.

That being said, we have been approaching this issue from the point of view that although we do not practice the principle, the principle did in fact come from God and still remains a principle that is held in church doctrine to be correct.

We've been discussing how this principle, though on the surface appears repulsive and carnal, can actually be seen as something noble and Godly. If you have any questions about how this is possible, I suggest sifting through some previous posts.

As for the part about Satan being the source of moral concerns over the principle, I think that Charity was saying that it's common for Satan to take something beautiful and godly, and cast it in a very bad light. That's what she's saying has been done with plural marriage. She isn't trying to throw out the people who have moral concerns with plural marriage. We aren't trying to throw out anyone who has a concern - obviously not, because if we were, this thread wouldn't have had so many thoughtful and well-constructed posts as it has. It would have degenirated and been locked like so many other threads.

And I hardly think we're looking through black and white lenses here - any of us. It's actually been quite an enlightening and thought provoking discussion for almost all of us involved.

[charity]

Observer wrote: "1. The way that I can be most Christlike is to have more than one wife? Is that correct?"

The way you can be most Christlike is to bend your will to His, in whatever He commands. And to live for the happiness of others. The man who loves and supports his family, whatever size that family may be, even to the exclusion of his own wants and desires is the most faithful follower of the Savior. "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." Matthew 16:25

Observer also wrote: "2. Any questions or concerns regarding the morality of pluralrriage are based primarily on promptings from Satan?"

I believe, since when the Lord commands plural marriage there is no question of its morality, that the skewed world view of morality is the deception of Satan. Satan has used the God-given powers of procreation to create the worst depravity by twisting what is good and holy into something evil and abusive.

And no, when people live outside God's commands they are not Christlike. The Lord's prophets have said that the Lord has withdrawn the approval and command for plural marriage. Anyone who goes against God is doing so at Satan's behest. Maybe there are different degrees of culpability, depending on their understanding. That is up to God to judge.

And yes, we can be deceived by Satan. That is why we are here. To be tested.

Black and white? "For God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round." Doctrine and Covenants 3:2 And we are commanded to follow Him.

[Calm]

I don't have time to read all the new responses, just want to point out that while it is taught that those who die without being accountable go to the CK, I don't believe there are scriptures that they automatically qualify for exaltation, the highest level in the CK and the only one, IIRC, where marriage of any sort is valid. There just may be something more that is required of them besides having lived and died.

[Ralph Man]

The way you can be most Christlike is to bend your will to His, in whatever He commands.

[Ralph Man]

deleted

[charity]

Ralph man, If you want to have a civil, reasonable discussion. Stay civil and reasonable. It is obvious you do not understand the Gospel, the life Christ wants us to lead, and the way to confirm what God commands for ourselves. If you did, you would not so insultingly talk about torture, etc.

And if I were a 13 year old girl who had had cofirmed God's will in my life, I would try to do it. Just as I try to as a 65 year old woman.

So I don't get myself queued I probably won't respond to anything you post in the future.

[Ralph Man]

Ralph man,

[charity]

All right, ralph man, since it is nearly 3 a.m. my time, and I couldn't sleep. Your whole post shows the reason why people fall off the deep end. The philosophies of men, which sound logical, etc., but which are based on falsehoods and lack of understanding.

1. There are eternal laws. There is not some fluid, "good only because God says so" kind of system. God, Himself, obeys these eternal laws. Alma 42:25 talks about God ceasing to be God if He does not obey the eternal law.

2. Good exists as an eternal principle, value, goal. Moroni 7 speaks to this. And we are exhorted to seek after good and hold on to it.

3. Any event (commandment) may not be either good or bad depending on the whim of this idea of god which has him throwing down strange and contradictory commandments to bedevil (and I used that word on purpose) his children which he treats like toys. I also purposefully used the small letters to refer to this person, because this is not God.

4. Good and evil exists independently of our ability to understand it. If we cannot see whether an event (commandment, etc.) is good or bad, it is because of our lack of understanding. Which is why we must rely on God. Not because the laws are changeable. Or that God can change an eternal law by merely saying so.

I think there are two reasons why I found the ideas in your post insulting. First, it assumes this condition where God is arbitrary and just toying with His children, negating what God really is. Second, I bristle at your categorization of me or anyone else who would only do something which is an eternal law because it is commanded.

"For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. Verily I say, men should be aanxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;" Doctrine and Covenants 58:26-27

I reject the coldness and futility of the philosophical jousting with "abhorrent command and emptiness problems." "O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. 2 Nephi 9:28

[beastie]

I seriously doubt that any of these qualifiers - China, for example - are going to alter the final balance, given the fact that I chose a conservative number for infant mortality for the overall history of the world. Even today, in poor countries, the infant mortality rate is 25 per thousand. I imagine that throughout most of the history of the world, infant mortality was much higher than 8 per thousand. Additionally, the 35 million excess males is only a figure that reflects after 1 AD.

So the 35 million number is an underestimate, which can provide a cushion for anomalies like China.

I don't have time to read all the new responses, just want to point out that while it is taught that those who die without being accountable go to the CK, I don't believe there are scriptures that they automatically qualify for exaltation, the highest level in the CK... There just may be something more that is required of them besides having lived and died.

This does not make any sense, Cal. If they had to prove their worthiness somehow, according to LDS theology, they shouldn't have died before the age of accountability.

[alannasaunt]

I seriously doubt that any of these qualifiers - China, for example - are going to alter the final balance, given the fact that I chose a conservative number for infant mortality for the overall history of the world.  Even today, in poor countries, the infant mortality rate is 25 per thousand.  I imagine that throughout most of the history of the world, infant mortality was much higher than 8 per thousand.  Additionally, the 35 million excess males is only a figure that reflects after 1 AD. 

So the 35 million number is an underestimate, which can provide a cushion for anomalies like China.

I don't have time to read all the new responses, just want to point out that while it is taught that those who die without being accountable go to the CK, I don't believe there are scriptures that they automatically qualify for exaltation, the highest level in the CK... There just may be something more that is required of them besides having lived and died.

This does not make any sense, Cal. If they had to prove their worthiness somehow, according to LDS theology, they shouldn't have died before the age of accountability.

Hi beastie,

I haven't had time to do the math, but is 35 M illion the correct number? It seems with how many people get born, that we should be considering B illions.

Plus, being a young male has always been a hazardous proposition even for those past infancy. Factor in war and accidents and the disparity become between adult male and female populations can become even greater. Just my 2 cents.

[Abulafia]

I'm coming late to this one, too caught up in the Grant Palmer stuff. I am with Beastie on this one.

Celestial Polygamy if it is a requirement only works if there are more females than males. (Which commonly occurred in the early church [so I have been told], and certainly over in the UK in the 80's what with the Osmond phenomenon)

If there are more men than women in the CK then the whole thing falls down, and it falls down hard because there will be an excess of 'worthy' men hanging around, biting their nails, whilst characters like Joseph and Brigham, have a ball with their multiple wives...

Then, if one adds into the equation the possibility of eternal progression and perhaps even eternal regression, this muddies the waters even more.

Then we get Jesus' apparent suggestions in the apocryphal works that androgeny might be the name of the game, and then we wonder whether God is Male, female or both...

The mind boggles. Truly do we see through a glass darkly!!!

All said with certain degree of light-heartedness.

[liz3564]

I'm wondering, though...if all of these numbers are, in fact, correct, and, in the final judgement days, there are more men than women in the CK, why did God initiate polygamy on the earth for a "trial run" and not polyandry.

Another argument that has not really been stated here against the practice of eternal polyandry is that, if we indeed to believe the patriarchal order of families as established by the Church to be correct, there can only be one patriarch of the family.

[alannasaunt]

I'm wondering, though...if all of these numbers are, in fact, correct, and, in the final judgement days, there are more men than women in the CK, why did God initiate polygamy on the earth for a "trial run" and not polyandry.

Another argument that has not really been stated here against the practice of eternal polyandry is that, if we indeed to believe the patriarchal order of families as established by the Church to be correct, there can only be one patriarch of the family.

Earthly polyandry has the "Who's your Daddy?" problem. CK polyandry wouldn't.

The patriarchal order of family as we practice it may also be an earthly construct. It has long seemed to me that the roles of male and female on this earth were determined to a large degree in the Garden of Eden.

I believe that Adam and Eve were supposed to eventually take of the forbidden fruit. They were not supposed to be deceived into taking it. Eve was deceived. Adam wasn't. What happens on those worlds whether neither were deceived?

[Nighthawke]

I seriously doubt that any of these qualifiers - China, for example - are going to alter the final balance, ...

The final balance being based on what Beastie? On only one qualifier? Your qualifier and that's it? Are you familiar with fallacious generalizations?

[MorningStar]

I've been wanting to add my 2 cents to this topic, but it will be more like $2 and I can't bring myself to write anything really lengthy right now because either I'll be interrupted or someone will write something really offensive and get the thread shut down right before I hit "add reply".  I don't know if I would have anything to say that hasn't been said already anyway, but I might.  Perhaps I'll slowly work on a word document in hopes that this thread will still exist by the time I get done with it. 

Hi Morningstar,

We've been pretty good,so far, don't ya think? Hopefully, nobody's going to start messing up now.

I would be very interested in what you have to say. Just please don't use the angry face.

Umm ... yeah. But apparently Ralph Man is trying to ruin it. (sigh)

[Calm]

This does not make any sense, Cal. If they had to prove their worthiness somehow, according to LDS theology, they shouldn't have died before the age of accountability.

I'm not talking about worthiness, but preparation and ability. JS speaks of preparation for exaltation not ending with this life, but the majority of it actually occurring in the next one. If so, it makes sense that there may be some that don't choose to move all the way up the ladder. Personally I think this life is more about learning how to learn and it will not be until we are up close and personal with God that we will be able to understand and develop what it truly means to be godlike and capable of performing the role of spiritual parenthold and other god roles.

Progression within kingdoms is considered a valid LDS belief even by those who don't believe in progression between the kingdoms. If all who enter a kingdom choose to progress to the highest level--exaltation for the CK, then there would be no need for the multiple levels as have been taught.

The numbers issue is not something new and not considered, btw. It is a longstanding criticism of widespread eternal polygamy and can only be justified by the idea that women are somehow more prone to be worthy for exaltation than men (which doesn't make much sense to me unless the requirements are different than what we know). Juliann and I have used the math many times before pointing out that even just a two women and one man relationship requires twice as many women being considered worthy and capable as compared to men.

Polygamy except as a rare case (and for the numbers that have practiced it in terms of actual celestial marriage and who would desire to continue to practice it seem to me to qualify for being described as 'rare' when compared to the overall numbers of humans ever in existence) is unlikely UNLESS there is huge stock of female spirits waiting to be born during the millenium or available from another planet or something, but if we go by the numbers as we know them, it is not something most people will be participating in, according to the math based on the requirements as we now know them.

That being said, there is a possibility that there is a huge reservoir of female spirits due to the fact that intelligence and gender are considered eternal and individual attributes. There is no reason to assume based on our current knowledge that the eternal intelligences automatically existed in equal numbers for gender. That is one possibility, imo, why a loving Father who wants all his children to have all the blessings they are capable of receiving might allow for multiple partners among those who are capable of being truly happy in this form of marriage.

[Abulafia]

Calmoriah, I absolutely agree with pretty much everything you have said.

[liz3564]

I'm wondering, though...if all of these numbers are, in fact, correct, and, in the final judgement days, there are more men than women in the CK, why did God initiate polygamy on the earth for a "trial run" and not polyandry.

Another argument that has not really been stated here against the practice of eternal polyandry is that, if we indeed to believe the patriarchal order of families as established by the Church to be correct, there can only be one patriarch of the family.

Earthly polyandry has the "Who's your Daddy?" problem. CK polyandry wouldn't.

The patriarchal order of family as we practice it may also be an earthly construct. It has long seemed to me that the roles of male and female on this earth were determined to a large degree in the Garden of Eden.

I believe that Adam and Eve were supposed to eventually take of the forbidden fruit. They were not supposed to be deceived into taking it. Eve was deceived. Adam wasn't. What happens on those worlds whether neither were deceived?

The patriarchal order of family as we practice it may also be an earthly construct. It has long seemed to me that the roles of male and female on this earth were determined to a large degree in the Garden of Eden.

I believe that Adam and Eve were supposed to eventually take of the forbidden fruit. They were not supposed to be deceived into taking it. Eve was deceived. Adam wasn't. What happens on those worlds whether neither were deceived?

This is the first place I think where you and I actually differ fundamentally in how we perceive this piece of the gospel.

My understanding is that the patriarchal order was something that was decided long before Adam and Eve came to the earth. The patriarchal order was not something that was decided based on who was deceived by taking the fruit and who wasn't.

[Calm]

I am curious is there is any one here who believes in the 'one and only true soul mate'. If so, I can see eternity as being something to be concerned about--what if one of you doesn't endure to the end? The other would seem to be left having to choose second best or be second best for someone else. Not a pleasant thought.

OTOH, there are those of us who don't believe in a perfect heaven filled with perfect people in every sense of the word, that there are any 'second besters' or at least no need to worry about it.

IOW, if you don't believe in the One and Only, then your wish to live eternally with your current partner is not based on some ultimate need that s/he is the only one capable of fulfilling for you, but rather simply because s/he was there first so to speak. And it is even possible that your current spouse isn't capable of fulfilling all those ultimate needs. If so, do you settle for 'second best' based on your mortal history or does something else occur (perhaps there really are no second bests no matter what the requirement is, each person having the fullest potential within them and it only being a matter of choice in developing it--but this might be contrary to scriptural doctrine).

Hypothetically speaking, on the assumption that perfect in terms of emotionally, mentally, spirtually, socially and physically developed men and women would be truly happy with anyone of a wide range of people (didn't Pres. Kimball state something like this), it would only be the 'emotional baggage' from our mortal life that would require us to stay within the same relationship we have here.

What if, when the veil is removed, we find out we had an equally or even more rewarding relationship with another individual in our premortal life and experienced that love and commitment as much as the love and commitment we felt with our current partner. What if we could tell we had the possibility of having equal or for some currently unknown reason, even a better 'becoming one' relationship, that there was someone or rather someones whose eternal nature would actually make a better coupling eternally speaking with us in the sense that it would allow both of the partners to reach a higher level of personal and relationship development?

Is there any logical reason to suppose this couldn't happen (many emotional ones, try to think of this in the abstract, speculative sense rather than actually trying to place yourself in this situation)?

If so, it would seem to me to open many possibilities of bondings beyond what we have chosen to experience in this life.

Because there are so many unanswered questions (these, the numbers one, what marriage and other relationshps will actually be like, what we will actually be like, etc) floating around, I think it best to put speculations that deepen into concerns aside and focus instead on developing a love and bonding with God. Once we get to the point where we truly trust that God not only has our best interests at heart and therefore has set up the best of all possible worlds, but also that he has promised us eternal joy and happiness if we so desire them and thus we will not be placed into any situation that could possibly limit that in any way, rather than worrying about 'what happens when' we can focus on what is most important, drawing heaven down to us in the here and now and begin to experience some of that joy even now.

[alannasaunt]

I'm wondering, though...if all of these numbers are, in fact, correct, and, in the final judgement days, there are more men than women in the CK, why did God initiate polygamy on the earth for a "trial run" and not polyandry.

Another argument that has not really been stated here against the practice of eternal polyandry is that, if we indeed to believe the patriarchal order of families as established by the Church to be correct, there can only be one patriarch of the family.

Earthly polyandry has the "Who's your Daddy?" problem. CK polyandry wouldn't.

The patriarchal order of family as we practice it may also be an earthly construct. It has long seemed to me that the roles of male and female on this earth were determined to a large degree in the Garden of Eden.

I believe that Adam and Eve were supposed to eventually take of the forbidden fruit. They were not supposed to be deceived into taking it. Eve was deceived. Adam wasn't. What happens on those worlds whether neither were deceived?

The patriarchal order of family as we practice it may also be an earthly construct. It has long seemed to me that the roles of male and female on this earth were determined to a large degree in the Garden of Eden.

I believe that Adam and Eve were supposed to eventually take of the forbidden fruit. They were not supposed to be deceived into taking it. Eve was deceived. Adam wasn't. What happens on those worlds whether neither were deceived?

This is the first place I think where you and I actually differ fundamentally in how we perceive this piece of the gospel.

My understanding is that the patriarchal order was something that was decided long before Adam and Eve came to the earth. The patriarchal order was not something that was decided based on who was deceived by taking the fruit and who wasn't.

Did I sound as if Eve may have been in charge? If so, sorry.

No, I was saying that it may have had some different function. ..possibly related to priesthood roles or something...is this getting out on a limb as far as board rules are concerned. If so, let me know. I'll delete.

[Froggie]

These are the things that make me fundamentally concerned about polygamy.

The numbers setup suggests that men and women are unequal, with the man being superior. The feminist in me acknowledges I would NEVER be happy in that situation.

The setup also suggests that this is the best scenario for propegation - of any sort. I am much more than a uterus. Again, the feminist in me acknowledges I would NEVER be happy in that situation.

Some have suggested that overcoming the need to be fulfilled in a marital relationship is somehow selfish or unspiritual. I do not agree. I think those are basic emotional needs. If you want to suggest that having an emotional need is unspiritual, I think we should examine the concept of God as has been introduced in scripture.

It is absolutely natural for selfishness or insecurities to ooze into polygamous arrangements, heck it is natural enough in a traditional 1-man 1-woman relationship. You will have to change the definition and expectation of marriage - essentially downgrading it to a business-production type of a facility before I anticipate anyone possessing the emotional security to thrive in it. Again, is selfish and jealous unspiritual? Well, the bible DOES say God is a jealous God so unless you want to make the claim that God is not spiritual, I would argue those traits are not ungodly.

And lastly, if I were forced to pratice polygamy today, either on the earth or in heaven, I would run mach speed over any other wife in the vicinity. Just because I can. I'm not nice and I want my man. I want sex every day, I want unlimited amounts of intimacy like cuddling and shared time. I don't think that giving up my man would make me more spiritual, and ultimately- that is what is being suggested. Why would someone have to give up something so very fundamental...and for what cause? Spiritual baby production?

Poppycock. Women are not hens. Women are thinking, feeling beings. It doesn't take three of us to equal a man in any other scenario, and it doesn't take three wives to accomodate a man in a polygamous scenario.

If we want to talk about equalizing this out with polyandry, allowing me three males in the afterlife, then I am all ears. Until then, polygamy is unfair, unjudicious, unfulfilling, unappetizing and just plain wrong.

Big green opinionated hugs,

Froggie