Why Is Polygamy So Vilified In The Us?

[Log]

I made a mistake by using "free agency" when I meant "agency". "Free agency" is written by habit from my youth, not by thought.

I do not believe in free agency, but rather moral agency which I do believe is scriptural--man is held responsible for his own actions.

Right. So we agree. Anyways - women are by nature closer to the divine nature. This doesn't bug me. I am unsure why anyone should find that offensive.

I have said nothing about the "separate but equal". Your position seems to suggest 'separate but unequal'.

Do you believe that women are programmed by their genetics or their environment to be more spiritual than men?

I reject the environmental explanation. I also am unsure that genetics account for it, as nobody seems to know much about genetics. All I know is that women and men are separate, and yes, unequal in the sense that the one does not substitute for the other, and numerically, blameless women outnumber blameless men.

(by separate I mean biologically - spiritually they are made into a whole by the sealing power of the Lord's anointed under the proper circumstances.)

[Calm]

I am unsure why anyone should find that offensive.

Would you be more impressed by a person with the IQ of 189 getting an A in math or with a person with the IQ of 89 doing the same?

The first probably could do it without much effort or thought. The second would really have to struggle with it.

Another analogy--do we think self-made billionaire is more to be admired for his efforts or a man who had inherited his billions and who's parents and grandparents did all the work in developing the family business?

And yet another--Dr. Steward gave his lengthy presentation without once referring to notes, he had memorized the entire paper. People were impressed and discussing how this was the first time they had seen a photographic memory in action---IOW, while impressive it was a trick due to an ability he was born with. It became more impressive when Dr. Stewart informed us that he doesn't have a photographic memory, but rather has trained himself to do this.

What is there to admire in someone who does good because they have to due to their nature which they had no personal control over developing?

The usual belief of Satan's version of the Plan has everyone living perfectly due to his control over them, thus they are all spiritual giants, but not through their own actions. Assuming that women are in some way more inherently spiritual due to their being closer to the divine nature than men in essence makes them spiritual robots, at least to some degree and thus not truly meriting of any eternal rewards that men would get from the same actions.

[Log]

What is there to admire in someone who does good because they have to due to their nature which they had no personal control over developing?

This is the heart of the issue, so if you don't mind, I'll ignore your analogies and treat this directly.

First - do you agree that women are, by nature, more nuturing, selfless, caring, and so forth?

The usual belief of Satan's version of the Plan has everyone living perfectly due to his control over them, thus they are all spiritual giants, but not through their own actions. Assuming that women are in some way more inherently spiritual due to their being closer to the divine nature than men in essence makes them spiritual robots, at least to some degree and thus not truly meriting of any eternal rewards that men would get from the same actions.

I make a formal request that you stop editing your posts long after I have posted a response. It's annoying.

Anyways - the usual belief of Satan's version of the plan is mistaken.

And yeah, there is an imbalance - men and women are NOT equal. I still don't get your problem.

[Calm]

This is the heart of the issue, so if you don't mind, I'll ignore your analogies and treat this directly.

First - do you agree that women are, by nature, more nuturing, selfless, caring, and so forth?

I agree that they are more outwardly nurturing in the sense of what is seen as nurturing behaviour toward others which are usually maternalish behaviours...I would disagree they are more selfless, caring and such. I believe that men 'nuture' in other ways not usually seen as typical 'nurturing' by society--for example, proving a home for others is nurturing behaviour. Working as a team member (as oppposed to an individual in a team) is nurturing behaviour.

I believe that men and women express their selflessness and caring in different ways some in part due to genetics but also due to social circumstances.

[Log]

I agree that they are more outwardly nurturing in the sense of what is seen as nurturing behaviour toward others which are usually maternalish behaviours...I would disagree they are more selfless, caring and such.

I am unsure where to go from here - to me, this assertion is akin to denying the sun is shining while staring at it, and bespeaks an eternal gulf between our perspectives and experiences.

[juliann]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have just found it odd that since posting on this board, I have been criticized more than once for "being selfish", etc. because I was against polygamy. OK....maybe it shouldn't bother me that a "random person" feels that way...but come on....Why do any of us post here? Why should anyone care about how the other thinks? After all, we're all just "random people" sharing thoughts.

You disappoint me, Juliann...I thought you could come up with a more original argument than that.

How many posters have called you selfish? What does not wanting polygamy have to do with that? I don't want polygamy...I don't think I'm selfish. I don't know why you are angry...I really don't understand why what one poster says is such an issue for you. I think it is a matter of following the living prophets...some people don't want to do that and they continue to advocate for polygamy. That is their problem...why make it yours?

[Calm]

I am unsure where to go from here - to me, this assertion is akin to denying the sun is shining while staring at it, and bespeaks an eternal gulf between our perspectives and experiences.

My degree and training are in psychology plus I've spent a lifetime examining this very issue (the differences between men and women's communication styles) adn dealing with it. I think the research demonstrates effectively that men and women express the same type of feelings and ideas in different outward behaviours. Selflessness and caring are feelings rather than outward behaviours, there is no way to really measure this simply through observation. One has to examine the motivation behind the behaviour.

[Log]

My degree and training are in psychology plus I've spent a lifetime examining this very issue (the differences between men and women's communication styles) adn dealing with it. I think the research demonstrates effectively that men and women express the same type of feelings and ideas in different outward behaviours. Selflessness and caring are feelings rather than outward behaviours, there is no way to really measure this simply through observation. One has to examine the motivation behind the behaviour.

Since you have denied the ability to examine said motivations, I simply go by the fruits. In my experience, women, as a gender, are more inclined towards self-sacrifice in the furtherance of other's wellbeing, and behave in a more nurturing, caring manner. I am inclined to take these behaviors at face value.

[Brackite]

Here is what calmoriah originally stated about the term 'agency' in this Thread:

It is also against the idea of agency.

Calmoriah did not use the phrase 'free agency' in this Thread. She did just use the term 'agency.'

[Calm]

Here is what calmoriah originally stated about the term 'agency' in this Thread:

Calmoriah did not use the phrase 'free agency' in this Thread. She did just use the term 'agency.'

I did, actually, by accident. I am usually more careful. I went back and removed it after he pointed it out in order to avoid confusion about my own position by later readers (since it's rather late, I expected more to be reading it tomorrow than tonight).

Thanks for coming to my defense though.

[Log]

Calmoriah did not use the phrase 'free agency' in this Thread. She did just use the term 'agency.'

That was the product of a late edit on Calmoriah's part, after my response was posted.

[Mekale]

Since it is impossible for you to know the motivation behind the actions of most individuals around you and even those that have discussed it with you, you have to take it on trust because you do not possess the ability to read minds, I have said your ability to judge is lacking/invalid, not that you have judged wrongly.

God can see into hearts and not just the outward appearances so his judgment will be valid.

Do you not understand the problem with judging an individual's spirituality by the group they belong to? What you are implying is that women are genetically or socially programmed to be more spiritual than men. They don't choose to do good by actual choice, but because they are programmed to do so. They can't help but be good. It is rather Calvinistic actually. It is also against the idea of agency.

And even if one accepts your claim, then since men are up against a harder road to travel, the Lord will take that into account in his judgment as he would any other disabled individual. Men may achieve more spirituality if one compares where they started to where they ended than women, especially if one takes into account that women are 'gifted' in spiritual things so it's no big deal for them.

Amen! Only God knows the intentions of these women who appear to men as being spiritually superior. I am amazed at how little credit men give themselves when I often find the most spiritual people I know are MEN.

Hormones play a large roll in the way women and men express themselves and our actions. For example: How many men do you know that gossip? I can hardly think of any. Yet I can't think of any women I know that DON'T gossip. Women may not be as physically violent, but we can be cruel in other ways.

There may be less Priesthood holders compared to women in the church, but it's not a reflection of spirituality.

I believe we are judged on how we handle the weaknesses we've been given and if we make them strengths or endure to the end. I believe there is a good chance there will be one man for every woman in the Celestial Kingdom, and with infant male mortality rates, it looks possible.

I have a really hard time believing God would set men up for failure in His plan so there can be an excess of women in the Celestial Kingdom.

[Log]

I have a really hard time believing God would set men up for failure in His plan so there can be an excess of women in the Celestial Kingdom.

Who said God set men up for failure in His plan so there can be an excess of women in the Celestial Kingdom?

[Calm]

Since you have denied the ability to examine said motivations, I simply go by the fruits. In my experience, women, as a gender, are more inclined towards self-sacrifice in the furtherance of other's wellbeing, and behave in a more nurturing, caring manner. I am inclined to take these behaviors at face value.

That's your choice, but you shouldn't confuse internal states with external behaviour. Women are more inclined to self-sacrificing behaviour, but if the reason they are doing it is because it is automatic, inherent; it's not really a true sacrifice, is it? They aren't having to make a choice to give up anything because the choice doesn't exist for them. One doesn't expect a mother to think twice about entering a burning building to save her children, the risk of losing her children is automatically worse (for most parents) than losing her own life. The total stranger on the street who has family at home risking his or her life is applauded as a hero because it's an actual sacrifice.

'Face value' depends on what your judging standard of behaviour is. And since women and men's behaviour options are varied due to genetic and societal demands, comparable feelings will be expressed in different behaviours. Accurate judgment must be based on awareness of the differences just as judging on "hardest worker" can't be based solely on final status on what was accomplished, but must be judged how much effort was actually put into it.

The process, the beginning state and the final result are required in pure judgment of a person.

At face value, one could claim that giving 1 billion outright to the poor is more charitable than investing it in upgrading property. I would say that it is more typical of women to simply give outright than it is for men so this is an appropriate example.

However, if the purpose of the investment is not only to provide jobs and other benefits for people in general and the intent is to produce income on top of the initial 1 billion and that income is for the charitable purposes than 'face value' is wrong, the charitable attributes are probably equivalent, just gone about in a different manner--one short term with no control set in place, one long term with more control features but both intended to help others.

I believe we are judged on how we handle the weaknesses we've been given and if we make them strengths or endure to the end.

Exactly.

[juliann]

Since you have denied the ability to examine said motivations, I simply go by the fruits. In my experience, women, as a gender, are more inclined towards self-sacrifice in the furtherance of other's wellbeing, and behave in a more nurturing, caring manner. I am inclined to take these behaviors at face value.

Nevermind all those men who die in wars...no self-sacrifice there. Any more gender bias you can add?

[Log]

I'll leave you in control of the field. In another context I would have asked different questions.

My views, lest they be lost - in the hereafter, polygyny is a mathematical necessity; women are closer by nature to the divine (closer does not entail lack of choice - simply that certain choices are easier for them to make correctly than they are for men); and I have no theoretical problem with polyandry.

Good night.

Nevermind all those men who die in wars...no self-sacrifice there. Any more gender bias you can add?

You're correct - few and far in between are the men who WISH to die, or who willingly do so. As Patton reportedly said - no man served his country by dying for it, but by making the other poor bastards die for theirs.

[Calm]

In this day and age, it is equally possible for both men and women to go on missions for the church (men at 19, women at 21). Yet men outnumber women substantially.

This would seem to imply taken at face value that men are more self-sacrificing than women.

[Mekale]

[

quote name='docrick' date='Oct 5 2006, 09:54 AM' post='1208044624]

We can debate NT scripture all we want but our interpretations are nothing more than spin. There are no scriptures NT or OT that SPECIFICALLY condemn the practice of plural marriage.

The Book of Mormon does and the scriptures were given to the people because they were using the Bible to take plural wives. The Book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, and the Lord condemns polygamy.

Could the condemnation in the Bible be implied? I would ask first how God defines marriage in the Bible.

He gives a commandment to not commit adultery. Maybe He didn't see the need to say the word "polygamy" or "plural wives." Perhaps he thought we would know the obvious from other scriptures of "cleaving to your wife" (not wives) and becoming "one", Adam and Eve.....It's possible.

Abraham was a Prophet with plural wives but where is the command from God for Sarah to give him Hagar? That showed a lack of faith when she gave up hope for the promised son. God works through fallible men and Abraham was not exempt from mistakes. The fruits of that union do not make a good case for God approving of it. There are many troubling things done by even Prophets in the Old Testament, but God still works through them to spread his gospel. Abraham was a devoted monogamist husband until that point.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms,like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

(I have seen the RLDS interpretation of Jacob 2:30 and they make a really good case for this scripture not giving an allowance for polygamy.)

[Calm]

Abraham was a Prophet with plural wives but where is the command from God for Sarah to give him Hagar?

D&C 132: 34, 65

34 God acommanded Abraham, and Sarah gave bHagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

• • •

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take aHagar to wife.

[Calm]

simply that certain choices are easier for them to make correctly than they are for men

If you can't see that the implications of women having it easier when it comes to making correct choices devalues the actual effort that women put into spiritual endeavours and implies that men are more prone to failure than women thus the Lord has set men up and giving women at least in part a 'get out of jail' card, I don't see much hope in getting you to understand why this idea is often seen as offensive.

You are basically saying that women have a higher Spiritual IQ than men do. If you were to say that whites have a higher IQ than blacks or asians have a higher IQ than whites....that would be offensive to many, yet by certain of the 'fruits' (the IQ tests), this can demonstrated (since IQ often measures skills that are developed through academics and not all have equal access to this development as well as the tests being culturally slanted). The problem is, of course, that one is judging the 'fruits' out of the context of what it took to produce them.

[Del March]

Lognormal,

how spiritually one acts is irrelevant in determining who will get to exaltation.

Let's study a fictional example.

Steve had a rough childhood. He basically raised himself in the streets. He took up drinking, smoking, using drugs, and swearing very early. He dropped out of school very early too. He kept living a very rough life, among very rough people, until one day he met the missionaries. The Holy Ghost testified to his heart, and he was converted. He started attending Church and reading the Scriptures, and most of all he loved His Saviour and whole-heartedly accepted Him as his Lord and Redeemer, truly believing that Christ loved him and had saved him and would grant him exaltation in the end if only he did his best to keep God's commandments. But he wasn't in appearance what we could call "a good member", far from it. He would swear in Church, he kept drinking and smoking, he was rude and in-your-face, and he didn't take assignments easily. But God and his Bishop knew just how hard he tried. They knew he was determined to change his behaviour. They knew he was sorry for his weaknesses. They knew he repented every day for his slipping back into his old habits. Over the years, he made slow and gradual changes. But it was more than 10 years before he was Temple-worthy, and even then he was still not a Peter Priesthood, not by far.

Now, there is Nancy. She was raised by goodly LDS parents who taught her great values. She learned about Christ and faith and repentance, and accepted all those things very early on. She also learned about doing all kinds of good deeds and started doing them very early in Primary. Then she perfected the art of being "a good Mormon" throughout Young Women and Relief Society. She was always pleasant, doing many good works and never doing anything wrong. She did everything that was expected of her and much much more. She became the uber, true blue, through and through Molly Mormon. Everyone who knew her was convinced that God couldn't wait to have her back by His side, and it was obvious she would be exalted - if not her, then who?? But Nancy had her secret, hidden very deep inside: someone had once hurt her very badly, and she simply refused to forgive them. No matter how many times God prodded her to forgive that person, she refused, preferring to cling to her hurt pride. Up until the day she died, she refused to forgive that one slight.

Now, Lognormal, who do you think was most worthy of exaltation? Steve, or Nancy? And when did they become worthy of it?

Del

[Froggie]

The ignorance and bias of the critics amazes me. The nastiness of their charges against the prophets amazes me as well as the hypocrisy. I've asked several times if these people would condemn Abraham as they have Joseph and the saints, but they always ignore that question.

And then this idea that we've evolved so we can have a more spiritual connection with one person and only one person. How childish that is to think that eternal love is so limited that it cannot encompass others. Our idea of love in this life is very immature. The closest we come to understand true unconditional love is with our children. When we can love everyone with that compassion and protective encircling love then we can understand something of what God feels for all of us. And we will also understand that love like that is not confined to one person and one person only. Surely we love all our children equally and treat them all with respect and fairness (not necessarily equally because they all have different needs). I do not understand how it can then be assumed that if you love other adults you won't do the same.

Hi Deborah,

I absolutely condemn Abraham for his polygamous behavior as I do Joseph Smith. 1 man + 1 woman suggests an equitable marital state. 1 man+(1+a) women equals inequitable state. Regardless of social or cultural context. The cultural factors may have the number of wives being a feather in the man's cap, or a reflection of his affluence. Or it could mean he is more of an alpha male, dynamic and powerful and able to "nab" more wives as proof of his prowess. Or it could mean he just likes sex a lot so finds a polgaymous avenue with which to channel his testosterone.

May I also go out on a limb and suggestion you have no idea of knowing whether or not our love in this life is immature compared to "eternal love." Surely, as a mother, you can acknowledge that you do not love all of your children equally as all children are different, and the style of love is quite dependent on the nuances of the personality of the child and yourself. Surely, you cannot also argue that God loves all of his children equally because the scriptures themselves reflect bias.

Big green hugs,

Froggie

[Log]

If you can't see that the implications of women having it easier when it comes to making correct choices devalues the actual effort that women put into spiritual endeavours and implies that men are more prone to failure than women thus the Lord has set men up and giving women at least in part a 'get out of jail' card, I don't see much hope in getting you to understand why this idea is often seen as offensive.

I really hadn't intended to revisit this thread, but here you've hit the nail on the proverbial head - there is no hope for you to get me to understand why you feel this idea is offensive. Women start out closer to the finish line, and so what? It doesn't offend me, and there seems no rational reason, to me, why it should offend anyone - it is the way things are. Stuff's just harder for males. Since when is one's sense of moral offense relevant to whether or not a thing is true? "This offends me, therefore it is not true" does not seem to be a sound argument to me.

Anyways, I do appreciate your civility. But I am bowing out.

[Del March]

Women start out closer to the finish line, and so what? It doesn't offend me, and there seems no rational reason, to me, why it should offend anyone - it is the way things are. Stuff's just harder for males.

Even if this were true, it still wouldn't have any influence on whether there will be more women in the CK or not. Getting into the CK is NOT a matter of getting to the closing line, because nobody can make it to the finish line anyway. This is why we need Christ. So it doesn't matter in the least if we have 1000 or 2000 miles more to go. All that matters is whether we rely on Christ to fly us over the finish line or not. This is a matter of faith, and faith is NOT easier for either gender.

Del

[freakin a man]

Hi Deborah,

I absolutely condemn Abraham for his polygamous behavior as I do Joseph Smith. 1 man + 1 woman suggests an equitable marital state. 1 man+(1+a) women equals inequitable state. Regardless of social or cultural context. The cultural factors may have the number of wives being a feather in the man's cap, or a reflection of his affluence. Or it could mean he is more of an alpha male, dynamic and powerful and able to "nab" more wives as proof of his prowess. Or it could mean he just likes sex a lot so finds a polgaymous avenue with which to channel his testosterone.

May I also go out on a limb and suggestion you have no idea of knowing whether or not our love in this life is immature compared to "eternal love." Surely, as a mother, you can acknowledge that you do not love all of your children equally as all children are different, and the style of love is quite dependent on the nuances of the personality of the child and yourself. Surely, you cannot also argue that God loves all of his children equally because the scriptures themselves reflect bias.

Big green hugs,

Froggie

You are free to condemn Abraham and Joseph for the issue of polygamy. What is important is did the Lord condemn them.

[

The Book of Mormon does and the scriptures were given to the people because they were using the Bible to take plural wives. The Book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, and the Lord condemns polygamy.

Could the condemnation in the Bible be implied? I would ask first how God defines marriage in the Bible.

He gives a commandment to not commit adultery. Maybe He didn't see the need to say the word "polygamy" or "plural wives." Perhaps he thought we would know the obvious from other scriptures of "cleaving to your wife" (not wives) and becoming "one", Adam and Eve.....It's possible.

Abraham was a Prophet with plural wives but where is the command from God for Sarah to give him Hagar? That showed a lack of faith when she gave up hope for the promised son. God works through fallible men and Abraham was not exempt from mistakes. The fruits of that union do not make a good case for God approving of it. There are many troubling things done by even Prophets in the Old Testament, but God still works through them to spread his gospel. Abraham was a devoted monogamist husband until that point.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms,like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

(I have seen the RLDS interpretation of Jacob 2:30 and they make a really good case for this scripture not giving an allowance for polygamy.)

The BOM condemns the unauthorized practice of polygamy and cites two specific men who took unauthorized wives in David and Solomon. The arguement that God merely tolerated polygamy or that it was not acceptable to God let alone not commanded by God simply is a claim goes unsupported.