Why Is Polygamy So Vilified In The Us?

[Deborah]

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.

I do not acknowledge any such thing. I love all my children equally; I can say that with total clarity. Do I act differently toward them or at times treat them differently. The answer is yes, because of their differences in personality and needs. I attribute that same love toward God, but like any loving parent he reacts to his children depending on their needs or actions.

As to the notion of eternal love, I just think it's axiomatic that our understanding of love in this life is immature. How can we think we have anything but an inkling of understanding of what eternity will be like?

I by the way am not advocating living polygamy now. I have said before I do not see it coming back in our current society. But I do resent those who condemn prophets of old as well as those saints who did practice it under the commandment of God. Those who are members of the church who make such condemnations should be ashamed of themselves and those who aren't can be excused on their ignorance.

[fox_goku]

I think the story of Adam & Eve (NOT Adam & Eves) is an allegory representing marriage at its best. If polygamy was so central, then why wasn't the first marriage polygamous????

If polygamy was so central, then why aren't the scriptures crystal clear that Jesus was married to wives???

If polygamy was so central, then why didn't the Apostle Paul advise Bishops to get wives.

If polygamy was so central, then why does the BofM advise monogamy.

Yes, I understand God can do what He wants when He wants. It just seems that He is NOT an effective communicator.

I take that back. Modern Prophets could NOT be more clear on the issue. Polygamy is defunct.

[Mekale]

But I do resent those who condemn prophets of old as well as those saints who did practice it under the commandment of God. Those who are members of the church who make such condemnations should be ashamed of themselves and those who aren't can be excused on their ignorance.

Hi Deborah,

I can't speak for anyone but myself but when I condemn polygamy it's not the people I condemn but the principle of it. I can't judge the intentions of those who lived it, only God can. I don't hate anybody who practiced it, but I hate polygamy. I feel heart ache and love for the women who had to endure the pain of sharing their husband with multiple women, and even some of the men who believed God required them to do it.

It's the same love I feel toward those who are living polygamy today in the name of God and my desire to help those women escape.

I do not have a sure testimony that God commanded it, and I would imagine that other LDS do not either.

Having a testimony of the Book of Mormon doesn't mean we have a testimony of every action or word of the Prophets.

[Nighthawke]

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.

You answer "...regardless of social or cultural context" and yet, having said that, you go ahead and post what you think are relevant 'cultural factors' for the practice. Why?

The Latter-day Saints were one hundred percent unambiguous about why they practiced polygamy: because they believed it to be the will of God. Scholars agree that Mormons practiced polygamy for religious reasons and not because of an out of control libido, or any of the other foolish 'cultural factors' you posted.

The only thing that you and others demonstrate with such off the wall posts is your dishonesty.

Take, for example John Corrill who recently posted out of context quotes from Ida Hunt Udall's book, did he bother mentioning that Ida broke her engagement to a monogamist because she wanted to practice polygamy and that it was her choice to share her husband with other wives? Her decision. Does he mention this? No. Not a word. Nothing. Why? Because he, like you, is not interested in an honest dialogue and only interested in spreading falsehoods.

[Mekale]

'Deborah'

I do not acknowledge any such thing. I love all my children equally; I can say that with total clarity. Do I act differently toward them or at times treat them differently. The answer is yes, because of their differences in personality and needs. I attribute that same love toward God, but like any loving parent he reacts to his children depending on their needs or actions.

I feel the same. I love all my children equally but uniquely.

As to the notion of eternal love, I just think it's axiomatic that our understanding of love in this life is immature. How can we think we have anything but an inkling of understanding of what eternity will be like?

It's possible that with out hormones and all the mortal influences here, that in heaven we will have a totally different perspective. Our relationships could go back to how they started in the pre existence, as brothers and sisters.

[Deborah]

It's possible that with out hormones and all the mortal influences here, that in heaven we will have a totally different perspective. Our relationships could go back to how they started in the pre existence, as brothers and sisters.

Interesting that you should say that. My sister and I were talking about wayward children and how hard it is to see them stray, when she said someone told her to remember that this daughter is her sister in eternity and if she can keep that in mind it would give some perspective. I thought of that and it does help to realize that this is really your sister and you have a stewardship over her, but she is the Lord's child first and foremost. That doesn't mean we won't have an eternal bond but it does mean that we aren't alone in our concern.

[asbestosman]

My views, lest they be lost - in the hereafter, polygyny is a mathematical necessity;

I do not intend to debate how more likely women are to be spiritual than men. Rather I wish point out something else. polygyny is decidedly NOT a mathematical necessity IF we are dealing with an infinite number of spirit children (worlds without number and all that). Transfinite math is a wonderful and counter-intuitive thing. Tarski and I discuss it here.

It is thus conceivable that individual females could be more likely to acheive exaltation than individual males and yet there would be a 1-to-1 matching of each male to each female in much the same way as there are preciesly as many even integers as there are even and odd integers combined. In fact there are precisely as many even integers as there are rational numbers (which includes all integers). On the other hand, one can also use the infinities to allow for a 1 to 7 pairing of men with women (or women with men) with there being no leftovers.

While I don't like the idea of women inherently being more likely than men to be exalted (nor visa-versa), it is indeed true that my desires and reality are two orthogonal properties. Nothing is true or false just because I do or do not wish it to be.

[Tarski]

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

- 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.

If it is truly easier for women then their test is not as great and the accomplishment less impressive. If it is harder for men then what they do accomplish is more impressive since they are burdened more than women.

Thus if the reward is just, then there will be just as many men in the CK.

Of course, I personally deny that women are more spiritual than men. I think that in many traditional cultures women are considered weak both physically and spiritually (but thats not true either).

And you might well ask this; If you really think women are more spritual or whatever, how did they get that way and just why would it be true?

[Del March]

I think the story of Adam & Eve (NOT Adam & Eves) is an allegory representing marriage at its best. If polygamy was so central, then why wasn't the first marriage polygamous????

1- Polygamy as we are discussing it has NEVER been about one man marrying several women AT ONCE. Polygamy as we are discussing it has always been about one man marrying several women sequentially. So saying that Adam only married Eve on his first wedding is irrelevant: all LDS polygamists also married only their first wife on their first wedding, duh.

2- We don't know that Adam didn't marry other women later.

So we can't make a case about polygamy by using Adam and Eve, except maybe a case from silence: it isn't mentioned that Adam married other women, so maybe he didn't because God didn't want him to. Tenuous at best.

If polygamy was so central, then why aren't the scriptures crystal clear that Jesus was married to wives???

The scriptures aren't even clear that Jesus was married to A wife. Maybe Jesus wasn't married? Maybe celibacy is the way to go, and God only instituted marriage to cover the sin of sex in some respectable clothes? (Not that I believe that, mind you, just offering possibilities)

Or maybe Jesus was married to several women...

Again, the only case that can be made by using Jesus is a case from silence, but then the silence about Jesus' marital status is so deafening that ALL cases can be made.

Del

[asbestosman]

And you might well ask this; If you really think women are more spritual or whatever, how did they get that way and just why would it be true?

Actually, I don't see it as any more problematic than the fact that those who die before the age of 8 are automatically saved in the Celestial Kingdom--that is no more problematic other than the inherent sexism in the man vs woman righteousness thing whether that sexism favors males or females.

Of course there is always the fact that the Savior was male, but perhaps that just means He was up against more trials? If so, why wasn't He born into an abusive family? That would have given Him some really big trials to overcome.

[dude]

I don't think the majority of people here who disagree with polygamy do. I know that personally, even though I am completely against polygamy, I respect the early Saints who practiced it. I have always emphatically stated that.

But the Bible has even stipulated that the Principle was instituted to "raise righteous seed" unto God. Sex certainly has something to do with that process.

My standing argument has always been....no matter how you slice it....polygamy involves an extreme emotional sacrifice between couples. The whole reason polygamy is an issue is because of the sexual nature. And, I think it's an issue for those of us who have been brought up in a religious background because we HAVE been taught and honestly believe that chastity and fidelity is important. We DO believe that forming an intimate relationship with our spouse is important and encompassing and right.

What I get frustrated with, frankly, is why WE are condemned...looked down upon...accused of not being "worthy", or living the gospel because we feel this way? It's ludicrous!

Why am I so odd and so wrong because I want to spend eternity forming a one-on-one partnership with my husband? Why am I considered selfish because I love my husband and don't want another woman involved in our relationship?

Look...as I pointed out on another polygamy thread, I have a friend who died in a car accident. Her husband remarried. He is sealed to both of them. His second wife has helped raise my friend's little girl, and has taken great care in preserving my friend's memory. I have always said that somehow...in the next life....their relationship will work out. I'm not begrudging or denying that there are situations where polygamy will exist.

But don't condemn me, and others like me, who don't WANT that type of life.

If you really want to help, help us understand WHY a loving Heavenly Father would institute such a practice? If God is God, why can't there be one person for everyone?

My comments below are directed to Liz and Truthdancer.

Your feelings and opinions regarding polygamy represent most of the LDS women I've known in my life. You are very normal and please take that as a compliment. Plus you're honest enough to admit it. In RS, you'll never get a true feel for how many feel exactly like you do because the forum is not the right place. And this forum (FAIR) isn't representative either because we've got hard-liners right and left who think it's an attack on the church if you're not all hunky-dory with it. Just know that you represent the majority of LDS women I've known personally and I just wanted to reassure you that you're not outnumbered, although it seems like it sometimes. Hang in there, you're representing the majority well.

[asbestosman]

I think the story of Adam & Eve (NOT Adam & Eves) is an allegory representing marriage at its best. If polygamy was so central, then why wasn't the first marriage polygamous????

Actually that question has caused me to ponder something else. If Adam did marry additional Eves, then what would be their relationship to the "Mitochondrial Eve" we hear about from scientists? Granted, even Mitochondrial Eve lived many thousands of years before Eve from Genesis is assumed to have live. Still, if Adam was a polygynist, it does raise some interesting genetic questions.

[Del March]

Actually that question has caused me to ponder something else. If Adam did marry additional Eves, then what would be their relationship to the "Mitochondrial Eve" we hear about from scientists? Granted, even Mitochondrial Eve lived many thousands of years before Eve from Genesis is assumed to have live. Still, if Adam was a polygynist, it does raise some interesting genetic questions.

Erm... Problem solved if Adam married... his daughters...

After all, Eve IS supposed to be the "mother of all living", so any additional wife of Adam would have to be her daughter.

Del

[asbestosman]

Erm... Problem solved if Adam married... his daughters...

After all, Eve IS supposed to be the "mother of all living", so any additional wife of Adam would have to be her daughter.

Del

Or maybe God created other women the same way Eve was created. They might end up with the same or similar mitochondria. What if Mitochondria Eve was really Adam?

[USU78]

Godâ??s plan was for Adam and Eve to be together, not for Adam to be married first to Eve and then later to Barbara, and certainly not for Adam to be married to Eve and Barbara at the same time.

Yikes! What are we to do with Lilith now?

USU "I know, I know, she was left out of the Bible, so she can't have existed" 78

[Froggie]

I do not acknowledge any such thing. I love all my children equally; I can say that with total clarity. Do I act differently toward them or at times treat them differently. The answer is yes, because of their differences in personality and needs. I attribute that same love toward God, but like any loving parent he reacts to his children depending on their needs or actions.

Do you have a scientific love-o-meter that I am not aware of? People say they love their children equally all the time......it is unsubstantial rhetoric which is not likely to be accurate (because it is really unmeasureable). Does God love Christ and Satan the same? Please provide scriptural proof that supports that notion if you believe that to be the case.

As to the notion of eternal love, I just think it's axiomatic that our understanding of love in this life is immature. How can we think we have anything but an inkling of understanding of what eternity will be like?

We can't have an inkling of understanding of what eternity will be like because we operate off of no knowledge of it. As such, any axioms related to eternal love are just unsubstantiated rhetoric, positive or hopeful they may be.

I by the way am not advocating living polygamy now. I have said before I do not see it coming back in our current society. But I do resent those who condemn prophets of old as well as those saints who did practice it under the commandment of God. Those who are members of the church who make such condemnations should be ashamed of themselves and those who aren't can be excused on their ignorance.

And you know this polygamy commandment that came to Joseph Smith was from God.......how? Because I think it came from Joseph Smith....based on his practice of it. He broke any number of other commandments in order to practice polygamy. I really dislike inconsistencies and illogical edicts from Gods. I do not believe a divine being would expect, require, or command such behavior.

But then again, I have high expectations for a divine being.

Big green hugs,

Froggie

[freakin a man]

I think the story of Adam & Eve (NOT Adam & Eves) is an allegory representing marriage at its best. If polygamy was so central, then why wasn't the first marriage polygamous????

If polygamy was so central, then why aren't the scriptures crystal clear that Jesus was married to wives???

If polygamy was so central, then why didn't the Apostle Paul advise Bishops to get wives.

If polygamy was so central, then why does the BofM advise monogamy.

Yes, I understand God can do what He wants when He wants. It just seems that He is NOT an effective communicator.

I take that back. Modern Prophets could NOT be more clear on the issue. Polygamy is defunct.

The problem is not that God is not an effective communicator, the problem is that

A. People read meanings into the passages that are not required or needed (i.e since Adam is not said to have had more than one wife at at time, therefore monogamy was the standard that God intended. No passage says that. In fact of the 930 years that Adam is said to have been alive, we have less than .01% of his life recorded. Adam might have been a polygamist but it just is not recorded.)

B. People think that if something is not said in the Bible, its not true or important. There is nothing in the scriptures that directly says Jesus was married but this is not evidence he was not married. Interesting to note that the Roman physician Celsius around 30 A.D. apparently noted that Jesus was a polygamist. Who knows whether it is true or not but just because the New Testament does not mention it proves absolutely NOTHING.

[Brackite]

freakin a man wrote:

The problem is not that God is not an effective communicator, the problem is that

A. People read meanings into the passages that are not required or needed (i.e since Adam is not said to have had more than one wife at at time, therefore monogamy was the standard that God intended. No passage says that. In fact of the 930 years that Adam is said to have been alive, we have less than .01% of his life recorded. Adam might have been a polygamist but it just is not recorded.)

There is nowhere in the Scriptures (Bible, BofM, and PofGP) that mentioned that Adam had more than one wife, even including Doc. And Cov. Section 132. Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 mentions that Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon had more than one wife, however there is nowhere in Doc. And Cov. Section 132 that mentioned that Adam had more than one wife. There is nowhere in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doc. And Cov. and Pearl of Great of Price that mentioned that Adam had more than one wife. The Scriptures (Bible, BofM, and PofGP) clearly state that Adam had just one wife.

freakin a man also wrote:

B. People think that if something is not said in the Bible, its not true or important. There is nothing in the scriptures that directly says Jesus was married but this is not evidence he was not married. Interesting to note that the Roman physician Celsius around 30 A.D. apparently noted that Jesus was a polygamist. Who knows whether it is true or not but just because the New Testament does not mention it proves absolutely NOTHING.

First point, his name was Celsus not Celsius (though I have heard Celsus been referred to Celsius before). Second point, and most importantly, Celsus did Not live around A.D. 30. Celsus did Not live in the 1st Century, He lived during the 2nd Century. The following is from the Encyclopedia about Celsus:

Celsus (Greek: Κέλσος) was a 2nd century opponent of Christianity, known to us mainly through the reputation of his literary work, The True Word (or Account), almost entirely reproduced in excerpts by Origen in his counter-polemic Contra Celsum of 248, 70 years after Celsus wrote.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus )

[AKS]

The problem is not that God is not an effective communicator, the problem is that

A. People read meanings into the passages that are not required or needed (i.e since Adam is not said to have had more than one wife at at time, therefore monogamy was the standard that God intended. No passage says that. In fact of the 930 years that Adam is said to have been alive, we have less than .01% of his life recorded. Adam might have been a polygamist but it just is not recorded.)

Rubbish.

By this reasoning you could make an argument for almost ANYTHING!!!

[liz3564]

My comments below are directed to Liz and Truthdancer.

Your feelings and opinions regarding polygamy represent most of the LDS women I've known in my life. You are very normal and please take that as a compliment. Plus you're honest enough to admit it. In RS, you'll never get a true feel for how many feel exactly like you do because the forum is not the right place. And this forum (FAIR) isn't representative either because we've got hard-liners right and left who think it's an attack on the church if you're not all hunky-dory with it. Just know that you represent the majority of LDS women I've known personally and I just wanted to reassure you that you're not outnumbered, although it seems like it sometimes. Hang in there, you're representing the majority well.

Awww... Thanks, dude! You are so sweet! We California-raised Mormons have to stick together! LOL

Thanks for the nice encouragement.

[Deborah]

Froggie,

Do you really believe that because we can't scientifically measure love no one can say they love their children equally? If that is the case how can you say you don't, since you can't measure it? I know that if anything happened to anyone of my children my grief would be the same no matter which one it was. I do believe you are failing to distinguish between love and behavior, which does require different ways of interacting.

I accept polygamy as coming from God because I accept that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and did his will. And because I accept that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were also prophets of God who did his will. And because I have received my own understanding of what the principle actually means and it is nothing like what the haters would present it.

[freakin a man]

Rubbish.

By this reasoning you could make an argument for almost ANYTHING!!!

Well that would be true. One could technically make up anything but it is just not rubbish. There is no claim in the Bible that it gives a comprehensive biography of either Adam or Jesus's life. The fact is very little of written about Adam and probably only 1% of Jesus life is accounted for. So yes one could make an arguement about anything but that that does not change the fact that we still don't know much about either person in the Bible texts. I will prove this too you.

1. Tell me what Adam was doing from the ages of 150-450 years old.

2. Tell me what Jesus was doing when he was 18, 22, or 25 years old?

freakin a man wrote:

There is nowhere in the Scriptures (Bible, BofM, and PofGP) that mentioned that Adam had more than one wife, even including Doc. And Cov. Section 132. Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 mentions that Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon had more than one wife, however there is nowhere in Doc. And Cov. Section 132 that mentioned that Adam had more than one wife. There is nowhere in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doc. And Cov. and Pearl of Great of Price that mentioned that Adam had more than one wife. The Scriptures (Bible, BofM, and PofGP) clearly state that Adam had just one wife.

freakin a man also wrote:

First point, his name was Celsus not Celsius (though I have heard Celsus been referred to Celsius before). Second point, and most importantly, Celsus did Not live around A.D. 30. Celsus did Not live in the 1st Century, He lived during the 2nd Century. The following is from the Encyclopedia about Celsus:

1. The LDS scriptures don't assert that Adam had only one wife during those 930 years from what I have seen. They don't say either way. No way to tell.

2. You have the wrong Celsus. I was not referring to the anti-christian Celsus of the 2nd Century but Arelius Cornelius Celsius, the Roman Physician, who lived from 25 B.C to about 50 A.D.

[grego]

Even if I had this charitable desire to share my husband, it's not possible to share the qualities I loved about him if chastity is at the top of my list.

Why not? Are you equating "chastity" with "sexual relations with one person"?

For some people (such as a few Japanese and Chinese I know) marriage with more than just one person--even after the spouse is dead, and even if only for mortality--is anathema.

fox goku wrote:Did you catch that? President Hinckley said polygamy is â??now against the law of God.â?...Did you catch that? President Faust associated polygamy with â??unchristianlikeâ? conduct. Letâ??s read further. President Hinckley taught that the discontinuance of polygamy was NOT an accident. Instead, the Lord REALLY wanted it discontinued.

Yes. And ending polygamy was the will of the Lord. The question is, Why? As Deborah said,

The only reason it is considered sin now is because God is no longer commanding it.

I see Pres. Faust associated polygamy with "not obeying the prophet", not "unchristianlike" the way you want to use it. Here's the context: "deliberate disobedience to the rules and regulations of the Church, advocating or practicing polygamy, apostasy, or any other unchristianlike conduct, including defiance or ridicule of the Lordâ??s anointed, contrary to the law of the Lord and the order of the Church."

[liz3564]

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?

No one has specifically called ME selfish...but read the thread. The majority of advocates for polygamy have stated in one form or another that those of us who don't want polygamy are either "challenged by our lack of understanding of eternal love" or selfish. I agree with you, Juliann. I don't think you're selfish because you don't want polygamy. I don't think I'm selfish because I don't want polygamy. But there do seem to be quite a few posters here who believe that it is a selfish act not to embrace this principle. I disagree with that.

As far as getting worked up about what a poster says....come on.....How many times have you been worked up about what "just one poster said"?

As far as whether or not I'm angry....If I've projected anger, then I apologize. It's not really anger I'm feeling. It's more frustration.

I just feel like those of us who do not have a desire to live this principle, and are honestly trying to understand how it fits in a loving way in the rest of the gospel continuum are being either pitied, villified, or both.

[Brackite]

freakin a man wrote:

2. You have the wrong Celsus. I was not referring to the anti-christian Celsus of the 2nd Century but Arelius Cornelius Celsius, the Roman Physician, who lived from 25 B.C to about 50 A.D.

Nope, it is you who has the wrong Celsus. Aulus Cornelius Celsus, who lived from about 25 B.C to about 50 A.D., Never noted that Jesus was a polygamist. (1) It was the Celsus who lived during the second Century A.D. who noted that Jesus was a Polygamist. (2) However, I do Not believe that Jesus was a Polygamist. There is a lot of evidence that shows that Jesus was Not even married. (3)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aulus_Cornelius_Celsus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Celsus

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roma...elsus/home.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/celsus-aulus-cornelius

http://www.general-anaesthesia.com/images/...ius-celsus.html

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/celsus.html

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflectio...ah/sources.html

3. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=35459

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/wasjesusmarried.html

http://www.jesusanddavinci.com/theology/cr...tml#Question_12