Polygamy And Belief

[utamnis]

Such unfounded assertions are not welcome in plural marriage threads.

Keep it civil or the thread will be closed.

My apologies. I truly meant no offense. Perhaps I misunderstand the "moral" issues people have with the practice. My point is that subjugation, greed, lust and "possession" have no place in any relationship between men and women. Perhaps I should replace the word sex with control. Either way, it's wrong for this to be the basis of any relationship. And if it (subjugation) is not present (even in our remotest reaches of our mind) it might change the discussion considerably.

The original post said:

"If I ponder the matter seriously, it offends my sense of morality. It does not sit right with me. Why? Because I have a difficult time believing that the just and loving God that I believe in would condone, much less command, that people live a lifestyle that places one group over another group."

"Is polygamy a form of domination of men over women? I suggest that it is."

"That is the crux of my problem with polygamy. I do not believe that a moral and loving and just God would take marriage, one of the most important and defining choices a person makes in their life, and turn that into a situation of inequality between men and women"

"I am looking for a moral explanation as to how polygamy could possibly be a moral, just, virtuous, good practice given by a God who holds those attributes. It seems to subjugate women to men. It seems to undo hundreds of years of social progress. I don't want the standard inductive "A is true, therefore B is true" explanation. I don't want another list of minimizing excuses or arguments from expediency. I want to truly understand and feel alright about it on a moral level. If there is no good explanation, I am left to conclude that it is something that was instituted by man rather than by God, and that doesnâ??t bode well for my faith in my church and its founders."

[Zakuska]

urroner, wrong person, I guess it was rameumptom...

You missed Twain's best statement on Mormons in "Roughing It" from chapter 14:

QUOTE

Our stay in Salt Lake City amounted to only two days, and therefore we had no time to make the customary inquisition into the workings of polygamy and get up the usual statistics and deductions preparatory to calling the attention of the nation at large once more to the matter.

I had the will to do it. With the gushing self-sufficiency of youth I was feverish to plunge in headlong and achieve a great reform here--until I saw the Mormon women. Then I was touched. My heart was wiser than my head. It warmed toward these poor, ungainly and pathetically "homely" creatures, and as I turned to hide the generous moisture in my eyes, I said, "No--the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure--and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence."

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/lofiversi....php/t9988.html

[BCSpace]

It seems to subjugate women to men.

How so? By that logic, marriage itself is subjugation though who actually subjugates who is open for debate....

Seems to me that the more women a male is married to, the more such a male is subjugated. He is outnumbered and completely held hostage if they collaborate......

[charity]

Besides, they all get PMS at once. Poor guy.

[Zakuska]

You know... I think Hollywood hit the nail on the head with the film... "Multiplicity".

[Olavarria]

Plural families(polygamy) is probably talked about more on this board than any other subject.

I believe in polygamy. It is a beutiful and holy institution.

I also believe in monogamy.

Since we dont practice polygamy today, the issue is moot for me. What is the point in worrying about something you are not asked to live. The earlier brethteren and sisters were consenting participants and the resulting family relations are really none of our business. Focus on saving yourself thru Jesus Christ.

[kamenraider]

I suppose I could ask how it could be moral to have sexual differentiation of individuals. I could say that as a man I am denied the opportunity to bear children and breast-feed them.

[dangermom]

I would ask the OP what he thinks of the early LDS women's defenses of polygamy, and their belief in the right to practice polygamy as a feminist principle. (That is, the early feminist women who corresponded with Susan B. Anthony and who were interested in suffrage and women's rights, who were also very vocal about the right to be a plural wife as something to be fought for right along with suffrage. Note btw that Utah territory did in fact have women's suffrage at that time. It also seems to me that Utah culture treated women far more equally than American society did at that time.)

When I got interested in polygamy, I was fascinated to read about how beneficial it was in many ways to the women who practiced it, and how valiantly they defended it. Obviously polygamy can be abused, just as marriage can--my daughter's own ancestress did not have a good experience with it. But when practiced with righteousness and the guidance of the Spirit, I believe that it can work for good.

As a woman (and a feminist) I do not have a problem with polygamy in the early Mormon Church. I have not spent a lot of time studying it in the last few years, but I read quite a bit at one time and found that I did not have a problem with it. I think it was probably very, very difficult to do--but I don't think it was wrong, and I do think it was inspired. Nor do I think that, properly practiced, it was oppressive to women. Nor do I really think that those early sisters would have wanted more than one husband (what in the world would any of us do with more than one husband?). Exact likeness is not necessarily the same thing as exact equality, and it seems clear to me that the Lord sees men and women as of absolutely equal worth, but with different (cooperative, equally vital) callings to perform.

[Severian]

Taking God out of it, I think there are times when polygamy would be necessary within any given culture, and might even work reasonably well in terms of division of labour, particularly if women were expected or required to contribute to an agricultural society for instance. I'm sure that at certain times there would be good reasons for it for the survival of a particular species.

There are certainly many examples in the animal kingdom that could be pointed to with one alpha male and many females. With the powerful brute force of the alpha male, the lesser males are held at bay. Within human society, these polygamous alpha males can exert similar domination as long as they have the consent of the lesser males and the females. For the long term survivability of the species however, limiting genetic diversity could have harmful effects.

[Nighthawke]

There are certainly many examples in the animal kingdom that could be pointed to with one alpha male and many females. With the powerful brute force of the alpha male, the lesser males are held at bay. Within human society, these polygamous alpha males can exert similar domination as long as they have the consent of the lesser males and the females. For the long term survivability of the species however, limiting genetic diversity could have harmful effects.

I don't understand why you see fit to bring in the animal kingdom. So what?

As for "the long term survivability of the species," again, so what? It was only practised for 60 years. The survivability of the species was never in any peril.

[randomaccess]

Could you restate your issue in one paragraph?

It would be much easier to respond to it.

Bernard

my last paragraph was a summation:

I am looking for a moral explanation as to how polygamy could possibly be a moral, just, virtuous, good practice given by a God who holds those attributes. It seems to subjugate women to men. It seems to undo hundreds of years of social progress. I don't want the standard inductive "A is true, therefore B is true" explanation. I don't want another list of minimizing excuses or arguments from expediency. I want to truly understand and feel alright about it on a moral level. If there is no good explanation, I am left to conclude that it is something that was instituted by man rather than by God, and that doesnâ??t bode well for my faith in my church and its founders.

[Deborah]

I do not find the principle of polygamy subjugating or offensive when practiced correctly and under divine law. We in fact practice polygamy today, when for example a man is sealed to one woman who dies and then is sealed to another. Both wives will be with him in the hereafter.

I do in fact see polygamy as liberating especially in a time when lives were labor intensive and when multiple wives would allow not only a division of that labor but an opportunity for women to be able to take on careers that they might otherwise not be able to do.

I think any problems one sees with the practice in either the ancient church or early modern church are due to one's own limited vision as well as the examples we see in the world of it's unrighteous practice as well as our hang-ups and obsession with the sexual relationships.

As a single woman I have stated before and I state again I would much rather be the 10th wife of a righteous man than the only wife of a jerk (which I was unfortunately married to).

[randomaccess]

Taking God out of it, I think there are times when polygamy would be necessary within any given culture, and might even work reasonably well in terms of division of labour, particularly if women were expected or required to contribute to an agricultural society for instance. I'm sure that at certain times there would be good reasons for it for the survival of a particular species.

All things being equal though, I don't think it works, simply because there are usually an even number of women and men in any culture (unless war kills all the men off). I certainly don't see that it was necessary in 19th Century America.

Makes the LDS a very interesting group though!!

this is an argument from expediency response. "division of labor" is a matter of pragmatism, not morality.

No need to re-state your issues here for me.

I personally find that polygyny could be a workable solution between consenting adults. And polygamy also, for that matter.

I find, however, that it is usually a problem, as you have stated above, when it is part of a religious structure where the man has more power than the woman, through the priesthood, or in some other way. In these situations, you most likely only find polygyny practised and allowed. That is when the power structure gets uneven and the abuses start to happen.

Then, in the unequal power situation, it seems quite immoral to me.

Just my .02.

agreed. then how is it that you reconcile that with belief?

[randomaccess]

randomaccess:

Lets cut to the chase a little further.

Was polygamist Abraham moral?

How about polygamist Moses?

If we are going to condemn Joseph Smith because of polygamy. What of these two great Prophets

Precisely my question. How does one reconcile belief with seemingly morally objectionable behavior.

As a side note, Abraham and Moses were keeping with their cultural status quo, JS was not.

[Deborah]

I am looking for a moral explanation as to how polygamy could possibly be a moral, just, virtuous, good practice given by a God who holds those attributes. It seems to subjugate women to men. It seems to undo hundreds of years of social progress.

Social progress? You mean the socially accepted immorality of people living together without marriage, or the multiple sexual relationships, or the rampant divorce rate? This is progress?

A man and wife living together when married under the laws of God and living righteously and to the benefit of both is a moral, just, virtuous and good practice. This applies whether the man has one wife or 50 wives. Again it must be founded on principles of righteousness, consideration and Christlike love. I do believe this was the way most of the pioneer saints practiced it. And from my reading, it seems to me the women had the power if we want to bring power into the equation.

[randomaccess]

While Abraham and Jacob (Israel) are the two big examples of polygamy, we know that David and Solomon weren't right in their undertaking of polygamy. We're using our current cultural views to judge something that God has sanctioned since the world was as right or wrong. I think that it would still be part of the church if the laws of the land weren't so hostile and unchanging towards polygamy. As many state and believe that many LDS practice polygamy in the next life. I grew up with my Grandfather being a polygamist in the next life. My Grandmother died when my Mother was a year old and my Grandfather got remarried in the temple. Polygamy isn't a big deal for me, but for my wife it's a huge deal. It could be how she was raised, it could be a woman thing, and Iâ??m not quite sure at this point.

I believe those who are chosen to live in polygamy will be a select few, like Abraham and Jacob and a few Latter-Day saints. It won't be given to everyone. In some interesting reading about the Canaanites and their belief of Ha-Elohiem having two wives. Roughly stating that our God the Father has two wives according to ancient texts. Two wives seems much more responsible than 100's like David or Solomon, who the BoM were doing abominations in front of the Lord. All speculation to some degree. I just find it wrong to judge God and his government or nature. Polygamy is part of God's nature; else it wouldn't have been commissioned for Abraham or Jacob.

To say that polygamy was part of an ancient culture and practice not applicable to us today is to say the same thing about the 10 commandments, thereby nullifying the word of God. Is that really what you think?

Are you talking to me?

You totally missed my point.

[randomaccess]

There are certainly many examples in the animal kingdom that could be pointed to with one alpha male and many females. With the powerful brute force of the alpha male, the lesser males are held at bay. Within human society, these polygamous alpha males can exert similar domination as long as they have the consent of the lesser males and the females. For the long term survivability of the species however, limiting genetic diversity could have harmful effects.

the question does not concern darwinian genetics. the question is one of morality, not survivability.

[randomaccess]

Why does God have to have 'sanctioned' it. If humans are free agents, left on this earth to work things out for themselves, then it stands to reason that different lifestyles would be adopted and experimented with, with the ultimate aim of continuing the species. I'm quite happy for humans to figure out that at some points, in a female dominated society (for whatever reason and I mean in terms of numbers), polygamy will probably be the best option. I'm also happy for humans in a time of high infant mortality to ensure that they had (men) access to fertile females for as long as possible.

Why oh why does God 'have' to have anything to do with it? Under certain circumstances, it would just be common sense???

Now, I know that culture and religion can interfere with common sense...but ...there you go...

Abulafia

Because Joseph Smith put forth that God had commanded it. That's where God comes in (please see D&C 132).

[randomaccess]

I do not find the principle of polygamy subjugating or offensive when practiced correctly and under divine law. We in fact practice polygamy today, when for example a man is sealed to one woman who dies and then is sealed to another. Both wives will be with him in the hereafter.

I do in fact see polygamy as liberating especially in a time when lives were labor intensive and when multiple wives would allow not only a division of that labor but an opportunity for women to be able to take on careers that they might otherwise not be able to do.

I think any problems one sees with the practice in either the ancient church or early modern church are due to one's own limited vision as well as the examples we see in the world of it's unrighteous practice as well as our hang-ups and obsession with the sexual relationships.

As a single woman I have stated before and I state again I would much rather be the 10th wife of a righteous man than the only wife of a jerk (which I was unfortunately married to).

You begin speaking from expediency, which is not what I'm asking about. I'm asking about morality. Please address how it is moral that the right to multiple spouses be extended to men only and not to women. And, considering that you are comfortable with polygamy within Mormon culture, are you also comfortable with polygamy in other cultures where it is practiced? Would you not view it as a backward or undesirable inequity?

[randomaccess]

If this is the crux of the topic then the moral dilemma is not whether polygamy is wrong or right, the moral dilemma is whether one believes that God has sanctioned the practice.

Having just finished reading The God Delusion by R. Dawkins I realized he missed the point as well in many of his arguments. The moral dilemma is not the action imposed by God but whether it is God that has truly sanctioned it. As with the case he makes about the slaughter of the Midianites. For the Israelites morality is not defined by the slaughter of the all the males but whether Israel followed the command of God. If that makes any sense..??!! (I only use this as an example I do no not wish to derail the thread)

Basically if one truly believes that God has commanded polygamous relationships then there is no moral dilemma with the practice of polygamy, the morality of the issue is whether we choose to follow God. Randomaccess alluded to this and it is not too far wrong. The real question is: Is God real and how do we know if God has actually commanded this practice?

Having said this I too have never felt comfortable with the practice of polygamy. No man in his right mind would want more than one wifeâ?¦!! But this lack comfortableness could easily be contributed to a cultural learning. I doubt I would have the same problem if I grew up in a culture where this is still practiced.

Nimrod

Thank you for the thoughtful response. You are right, the question is ultimately whether we believe in god (or those who claim to be his spokesmen), and whether that belief trumps our own sense of morality, independent of reason or personal ethics.

[randomaccess]

I spent a couple of weeks reading the Woman's Exponent this past fall and it is full of articles defending the principle. Read the following for example by Lula Greene Richards, first editor of the Exponent. I bolded what I think answers the question of morality:

When I speak of morality, I speak of fundamental right and wrong based on ethical arguments, not a cultural blip or the sanction of some instance of behavior by god (e.g. Nephi killing Laban). "Regarding" the polygamist as "just" as the monogamist does not implicitly make him such.

[randomaccess]

The subjugation of women to men is by no means limited to polygamy. If that is the result of any relationship it is wrong. Here are a few lines from GBH in Oct 2004 Conf. One of my favorites of all times. While this is not about polygamy directly, it deals with the "grand summation" of the creation of the earth - women.

When these issues are dealt with, I mean completely dealt with, I think many of the 'issues' with polygamy will be resolved. Subjugation, greed, lust and "possession" have no place in any relationship between men and women. Much of the "morality" associated with polygynous relationships is tied to these feelings on both the part of men and women. When it comes down to it, it is less about a mutual social arrangement and more about sex.

"And so Eve became God's final creation, the grand summation of all of the marvelous work that had gone before.

Notwithstanding this preeminence given the creation of woman, she has so frequently through the ages been relegated to a secondary position. She has been put down. She has been denigrated. She has been enslaved. She has been abused. And yet some few of the greatest characters of scripture have been women of integrity, accomplishment, and faith."

"Man and woman are His creations. Their duality is His design. Their complementary relationships and functions are fundamental to His purposes. One is incomplete without the other."

"There are some men who, in a spirit of arrogance, think they are superior to women. They do not seem to realize that they would not exist but for the mother who gave them birth. When they assert their superiority they demean her. It has been said, "Man can not degrade woman without himself falling into degradation; he can not elevate her without at the same time elevating himself" (Alexander Walker, in Elbert Hubbard's Scrap Book [1923], 204)."

"Every woman is a daughter of God. You cannot offend her without offending Him. I plead with the men of this Church to look for and nurture the divinity that lies within their companions. To the degree that happens, there will be harmony, peace, enrichment of family life, nurturing love.

The women in our lives are creatures endowed with particular qualities, divine qualities, which cause them to reach out in kindness and with love to those about them. We can encourage that outreach if we will give them opportunity to give expression to the talents and impulses that lie within them. In our old age my beloved companion said to me quietly one evening, "You have always given me wings to fly, and I have loved you for it."

It seems that you have a very loving ideal relationship with your wife. You mentioned that relationships can be unequal in monogamist situations as well as polygamist ones. I am wondering how you reconcile your faith with the seemingly unequal and subsequently immoral practice of polygamy, given your obvious respect for the marriage covenant.

I agree completely.

Funny story:

This week in the Gospel Principles class, they where teaching about Priesthood and Authority. The theacered asked the class to think of an authority figure in your life that you looked up to. The ward Jokester piped up and said: "My Wife" I think he probably got a talking to when he got home.

My wife and I's song is the Robin Hood theme... "Everything I do I do it for you".

The Ideal relationship is Husband and Wife. But that does not mean that Polygamy does not have its uses and necessities in an imperfect world, where death rends families.

So polygamy is justified to keep motherless children cared for? Why not adoption? I think you are missing my point.

[randomaccess]

I Corinthians 14

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Can your reconcile this thinking? Isn't this oppression? I think you totally misunderstand the principle of polygamy. This is why not all were able to practice it. It can be an ugly thing but if practiced as God would have it can be a beautiful and righteous principle to follow.

Yes it is oppression, however, it was the cultural norm of the time. Joseph Smith went against the cultural norm. We often default to cultural norms as defenses for seemingly immoral practices, e.g. blacks and the priesthood. Joseph Smith went AGAINST cultural norms with polygamy claiming that God had commanded that it be practiced. It is a seemingly immoral practice coming from a moral god. How does one reconcile the two?

[randomaccess]

urroner, wrong person, I guess it was rameumptom...

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/lofiversi....php/t9988.html

Roughing It is the best satirization of my culture that I have ever read.

Plural families(polygamy) is probably talked about more on this board than any other subject.

I believe in polygamy. It is a beutiful and holy institution.

I also believe in monogamy.

Since we dont practice polygamy today, the issue is moot for me. What is the point in worrying about something you are not asked to live. The earlier brethteren and sisters were consenting participants and the resulting family relations are really none of our business. Focus on saving yourself thru Jesus Christ.

And how is it that you have navigated to this position?

[randomaccess]

I suppose I could ask how it could be moral to have sexual differentiation of individuals. I could say that as a man I am denied the opportunity to bear children and breast-feed them.

Your dismissal of my post is based on a logical fallacy. Shocking.