Polygamy And Belief

[Abulafia]

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

Random, I'm having a hard time following you.

Okay, I'm aware of the fact that polygamy is both embraced and condemned within LDS cannon.

Compare Jacob, and D & C 132 (not withstanding the caveat in Jacob)

I was always puzzled by the apparant contradiction in trying to assess as to whether God considered polygamy an 'abomination' or embraced it as a law of heaven.

I don't think polygamy necessarily demeans women, or puts them in a subserviant position. It depends on the people, how they practice it and the culture.

If humans practice polygamy for whatever reason, then it seems that there must be a 'moral' and 'just' way to practice polygamy. Like monogamous relationships, I guess this is up for grabs. I would think that that is what 'God' would ultimately be concerned with. Are the participants honest, upright, loving to each other and so on and so forth.

Of course, if the purpose of marriage is companionship and support, then one has to ask how much the man can support any one woman if he has 30 others (and their children) to think about.

I don't for one minute think that a father (at least an earthly father constrained by the physical universe) can be in all places at all times. In that way the wives and children would lose out. Again, however, in monogamous relationships we can have a non-present father (and mother), so it can overlap into other types of marriage units.

Me personally, I think that the 'ideal' relationship on earth, is one man and one woman, particularly in terms of the children and the wives of course.

That's why God created Adam and Eve, and not Adam Eve, Jocelyn, Jackie and Deborah. The story indicates an exclusive marriage relationship.

IF the tomb found in Talpiyot is Jesus' family then another interesting theological issue for mormons will be ...if Jesus was the example in all things, and if he only had one wife (Maryamne) then what does this say about those who practice polygamous relationships.

Interesting...

#

Abu

[kamenraider]

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

How so?

[Deborah]

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?

I was very clear in saying "when practiced correctly and under divine law". I can't get much clearer. If God sanctions it then it is not immoral.

[Abulafia]

But the 'way' it's practiced can be 'immoral' whether or not God comes into the equation.

The big questions are (and there seem to be a lot of threads on this issue lately) whether the early leaders of the church were 'moral' in their practice of polygamy...

I find the Mormon concept (as I understand it) of a polygamous heaven to be fraught with problems on many fronts. Many of which have already been discussed on these boards...

[Deborah]

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

On what then do you base your ethical arguments if not on the sanction of God? How do you know the arguments of men are any more moral or just in the eternal perspective? As to the specifics of polygamy God's law is much more just as it allows women who othewise might not be married to find a husband so that she too can have eternal increase. In the end it is the woman's choice of who she wants to be sealed to.

This actually was the principle as practiced in Abraham's day. Sarah gave Leah to be Abraham's wife so that Abraham could have his lineage. It was indeed an act of faith for which she was eventually blessed with her own son. I think in the eternities men and women will have such a more elevated and perfect view of each other that the petty jealousies and rivalries of mortality will have no place or meaning.

[Deborah]

But the 'way' it's practiced can be 'immoral' whether or not God comes into the equation.

You are quite right and those individuals who fail to do what is right will be accountable. But at the same time it is up to God to judge his prophets and not those who live after the fact and with a narrow and incomplete view of the facts.

[Nighthawke]

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).

In other words you're generalizing. You're looking at it from a blanket judgment once-size-fits-all broad brush general point of view instead of from the historical/cultural context of the people living it.

"Regarding" the polygamist as "just" as the monogamist does not implicitly make him such.

Except that the people doing the "regarding" were the people living it which implicitly makes "the polygamist as 'just' as the monogamist. Who else is fit to make that judgment? Rationalistically prejudiced strangers living in 2007?

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?

Have you read the Old Testament?

How does one reconcile a moral God who forbids adultery commanding the prophet Hosea to marry Gomer -- a woman who, after marrying Hosea, goes on to have numerous lovers and was banished by Hosea because she was an adulteress. That was the legal way. Then the moral God commands Hosea to break the law and to "Bring Gomer back to your home, renew your love for her."

How does one reconcile the principle of a plurarity of wives with a moral God? Celestial marriage, which includes a plurality of wives, is the reason why LDS have Temples all over the earth today. It is the reason why we believe that families are forever. Delete section 132 and denounce Joseph Smith as a fallen prophet and you end up with the Community of Christ who have no Temples and marriages are 'til death do you part and who have relegated Joseph Smith to the closet.

[Oracle]

I was very clear in saying "when practiced correctly and under divine law". I can't get much clearer. If God sanctions it then it is not immoral.

I'm sorry. I don't buy it. If I went in and drowned my children today because God told me to do it, you have a zero possibility of proving me wrong. Zero. The process of God communicating what he sanctions and what he does not is such murky water that it defies any valid verification process.

God either gives humans a working brain with logic and asks us to work with what we have, or God is a tease, giving us limited tools to understand Him and then asks us to contradict (either with belief or behavior) the only tool he has given us that we can trust.

No thanks. I'll stick by the common sense mechanism that works quite well between my head and my heart. And my heart and my head tell me that Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy was a product of Joseph Smith, not God. Just like it kicked in when Andrea Yates claimed God told her to drown her children. I can't PROVE that God did or did not tell her to do what she did, but my tools that I have to work with tell me she was up in the night.

[utamnis]

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.

randomaccess, you said:

>>Polygamy was the king-pin, so I decided to start there. Polygamy has bothered me ever since I was old

>>enough to understand the implications of the practice.

>>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. In this case,

>>subjugating women to men.

I guess, to begin with, it does not offend my sense of morality or sit in opposition to my faith. I'm not sure I understand your objection apart from subjugation. Is that the basis of your moral objection to the practice? If that were not the result, would you find polygamy an issue in and of itself?

I find the practice very practical. It is not the solution for taking care of "widows" or "fatherless children", nor is it a matter of "survival of the species" or "agricultural subsistence". I think it works just as well today as in any other period. It is much like my view of social order - application is everything. The applications of socialism/communism around the world offend my sensibilies, yet I am a socialist at heart. In order to function to its potential, a mutually accepted and participatory 'contract' must be present. If everyone isn't doing their part or doesn't agree to the conditions it comes crashing down. When small pockets of people attempt such an order they tend to become isolationists, and it comes crashing down. Human nature, at this stage, will not allow for such a utopian ideal.

With polygamy, application is everything. It doesn't offend my morals or my faith. I don't think it was or will be 'required' of God and I certainly don't think anyone should participate in any arrangement that is contrary to their free will.

Your premise is that the arrangement is inherently unequal therefore immoral. On what is that based?

[charity]

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, you have not told us where you think "morality" comes from? Do you believe in the Kohlberg model of moral development?

Tp briefly recap:

At the pre-conventional, the person is concerned with being obedient. You are rewarded if you are obedient and punished if you are not. The rules come from outside. And what the rule is, isn't really imporant. Its is more what's in it for me? Conventional morality is based on conformity. What will people think of me? Will they think I am bad or good? What would happen if everyone did this? I could run a stop light and get away with it, but what if everyone ran stop lights, then traffic would be a snarl. Eventually, people may come to the universal ethical principles stage. I live my life by these principles, and it doesn't matter if I am punished or if everyone thinks I am bad. I do it to be "true" to myself.

So when you are asking if it is "moral" for men to have more than one wife, but not for women to have more than one husband, at which stage of moral development are you talking about?

[Olavarria]

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

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

Good questian. I have read the biographies of Joseph f. Smith and Joseph Smith Jr.(RSR). I have read the varoius 19th centuary sermons on the subject. I have read the BoM, OT and D&C verses that deal with the subject. I have tried to grapple to understand that principle as God understands it. In short, I have recieved a spiritual as well as intellectual witness that plural families is a just and holy principle provided that 1)God commands it, and 2)it is performed under the auspices of the priesthood. Since niether criteria can be met on present day earth we do not practice it. Since modern polygamy is not sanctioned by God or the laws of men, any entrance into polygamy is adultery and the practitioners should be excummunicated.

To understand the things of God one must humble oneself and allow God to teach you. One must seek to understand God's will and motives, and realize that He does not give us anything we 1)cant handle or 2)isnt for our benefit. The problem is, when people think of polygamy all they think about is lots of sex. When we get our mind out of the gutter, light is free to shine down on us.

[Deborah]

God either gives humans a working brain with logic and asks us to work with what we have, or God is a tease, giving us limited tools to understand Him and then asks us to contradict (either with belief or behavior) the only tool he has given us that we can trust.

Ok, logically you have an labor intensive agrarian society where the more hands you have the more you are able to distribute the work load and the more you can accomplish. Logically polygamy would be ideal in such a society not only to help the women but to bring more children who as they grew could help in the production of crops and running the family business. It would also be ideal in the sense that women could have others to share in the care of the children and therefore have more free time to pursue careers or other interests.

[Thinking]

You need to rethink your logic.

Ok, logically you have an labor intensive agrarian society where the more hands you have the more you are able to distribute the work load and the more you can accomplish. Logically polygamy would be ideal in such a society not only to help the women but to bring more children who as they grew could help in the production of crops and running the family business.

What?! You just reduced women and children to slave labor, existing solely for the benfit of the owner. Since the ratio of women to men is about 1:1, let each man have one wife, and the farm owners can hire workers from the general population. Wait, that's what farmers do already!

It would also be ideal in the sense that women could have others to share in the care of the children and therefore have more free time to pursue careers or other interests.

Wife #1 (to Wife #2): Will you watch my five children every day while I pursue a new career? This farming stuff is getting old, and as wife #1, I'm entitled to enrich my life.

Wife #2: Sure, your two in diapers shouldn't add too much time to the three I have in diapers. If I can get them to all take naps at the same time, I should be able to work in the fields for an hour.

[ed2276]

What?! You just reduced women and children to slave labor, existing solely for the benfit of the owner. Since the ratio of women to men is about 1:1, let each man have one wife, and the farm owners can hire workers from the general population. Wait, that's what farmers do already!

Now wait a minute. That proposition has nothing to do with the reduction of anyone to slave anything. The proposition that in an agrarian society the more hands there are the lighter the work and the more productive the family is a sound one. The man has to labor just as hard in preparing the fields , planting , nurturing and harvesting the crops , as well as the other myriad tasks of farm life ; is he also a slave? I think that if you considered the circumstances of a family of farmers you would see the absolute logic in the idea that the bigger the family the easier the life , instead of knee-jerking it into a negative.

[Deborah]

What?! You just reduced women and children to slave labor, existing solely for the benfit of the owner. Since the ratio of women to men is about 1:1, let each man have one wife, and the farm owners can hire workers from the general population. Wait, that's what farmers do already!

I was responding to Oracle who implied that there is no logical reason for polygamy. I was presenting a logical case of where it would be beneficial, though that certainly wasn't the reason the LDS practiced it.

ed made an excellent point about the responsibilities of the man. In all the discussions of polygamy this is always overlooked. It's like he gets all these perks and people waiting on him. On the contrary he had to support this large family as well as deal with all the emotional ups and downs of women and children. I do not envy the man under polygamy (when practiced as it was intended). I think the woman had the better deal. And no I do not think that was the case where it was practiced unrighteously.

[Abulafia]

This is a very long winded, but interesting article, that has some quite interesting things to say about polygamy

http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v12n...05polygamy.html

Which actually happens to debunk what you are saying Deborah, in terms of women getting the better deal.

Though, of course Mormonism might have been the exception. In most polygamous societies (where there aren't more women than men), women in fact lose out on many fronts.

[Deborah]

This is a very long winded, but interesting article, that has some quite interesting things to say about polygamy

The polygamy practiced in third world countries cannot be compared to that practiced by the church, which is why only a few practiced it and why there were strict rules. From the strong pioneer women I've read about, I can't imagine any of them being walked over or downtrodden. In all things there is the legitimate practice as established by God and then there is the counterfeit perpetrated by Satan, whose purpose is not to build but to destroy. Was everything perfect? No, because people are not perfect.

One of the reasons there was such a movement against polygamy was because of people like the real Anna (of The King and I fame) who saw the practice in Asia and thought that was the same as that practiced by the Mormons, which was not the case.

[Calm]

What?! You just reduced women and children to slave labor, existing solely for the benfit of the owner.

On the contrary, the women and children are all potentials owners as they will inherit the property at the death of the husband. The children will likely benefit even before then as it was common for them to receive part of the land or property at the time of their marriage or at least help in setting up their own property. Thus they may end up sharing in any improvement to the property as well as being supported by it.

No such obligation exists with slaves, at least in the US style of slavery.

add-on: I believe it was Daynes whose study demonstrated that the polygamy of Utah was a very effective means of spreading the wealth. The lower income, uoften immigrant women would marry the more wealthier males, they being the ones that could afford to take care of larger families.

[Thinking]

I think that if you considered the circumstances of a family of farmers you would see the absolute logic in the idea that the bigger the family the easier the life...

...more mouths to feed, more bodies to clothe, and what about the time period between birth and when a child is old enough to be a productive worker? There is much more to consider than just having extra hands.

[ed2276]

...more mouths to feed, more bodies to clothe, and what about the time period between birth and when a child is old enough to be a productive worker? There is much more to consider than just having extra hands.

That's true , there are more things to consider than having extra hands. But , as I wrote , having more hands does lighten the load and make the family more productive. The more hands you have the greater the ability to produce to feed the mouths

For instance , in an agrarian society if a man is feeding himself from his labor on a farm he needs to grow and harvest wheat , corn (perhaps oats , barley or alfalfa as well) vegetables , fruit trees , raise chickens , cows , plow horses , etc. In addition he needs to tend to all the household chores and repairs. He needs to provide for his clothing , etc. There is no way that he can supply all his needs for himself. If he has wives , sons and daughters wherein there can be a division of labor then all his wants and needs can be satisfied , as well as all the wants and needs of the family.

If he were one man , married to one wife with two sons he would have a harder time of it meeting all the family's needs and wants and properly caring for the home , land and animals than if he had 5 wives , 10 sons and 10 daughters. That much is as plain as day.

Consider just one crop...corn. One half acre of corn will yield about 70 bushels ( far more than is needed for the entire want of himself , his family and for feed for animals) much of which can be stored for future use. Also , the man will have an excess of yield such that he can tithe the crops and donate a significant amount of food to the Bishop's storehouse for use of the poor , or even give directly to those he sees are in need.

If the man is alone and dedicates himself to just this one crop he cannot possibly manage to grow and harvest and the store it all by himself efficiently and he is prevented from managing any of the other crops , fruit trees , animals , etc. that he needs to. If he has sons and daughters to help him then some of them can harvest from the garden , others from the fields , others from the trees while he tends the animals , makes repairs , etc. The wives can prepare the food , can and jar the excess , make and repair clothing. The larger the family the more it can produce and through the division of labor the more efficiently and easily.

For a family in such a situation where they are able to divide the labor , where the man practices sound farming principles , stores a certain amount of the excess harvest for himself and family , tithes faithfully to the church in his yield , gives a portion of his excess to the poor and is faithful to God he and his family , no matter how large , will never want. He may even go a step further and give his land and all that he has on it to the church and be allowed to remain on the land as an inheritance from the Lord. In such a case I have no doubt that the man and his family would be assured that they would always prosper on the land and never go hungry , as well as being blessed in ways beyond the need for food and clothing.

[Oracle]

I was responding to Oracle who implied that there is no logical reason for polygamy. I was presenting a logical case of where it would be beneficial, though that certainly wasn't the reason the LDS practiced it.

ed made an excellent point about the responsibilities of the man. In all the discussions of polygamy this is always overlooked. It's like he gets all these perks and people waiting on him. On the contrary he had to support this large family as well as deal with all the emotional ups and downs of women and children. I do not envy the man under polygamy (when practiced as it was intended). I think the woman had the better deal. And no I do not think that was the case where it was practiced unrighteously.

Thanks for the example Deborah. Logically, it would seem to me to be easier to use currently existing hands rather than go to all the trouble to create, birth, feed and care for (and all of the other associated responsibilities that go with parenting) your own man-made workforce. At least to me. It kind of reminds me of a chicken/egg scenario. You make children to work on the farm, creating the need to make more money from the farm so you can feed the mouths of the workforce you created to work the farm.

I can think of one more alternative scenario that would be logical though. A woman could enter into a polygamous marriage, put the other wives on life insurance policies, make herself the beneficiary, and then systematically "off" the wives in order to ensure material wealth for her and her children. Logically, the more variables in the marriage, the easier it would be to lose some of those variables without harming the marriage unit itself. Logically, that would be a benefit. Morally? Hmmmm.

You'll note that back in the agrarian days, children were like this as well. People had 15 children, then if they lost a few it didn't make so much of a difference. The more the numbers, the better they could afford to lose a few of them.

[No Touch]

To ask about this in a moral context is borderline pointless, and the reason is such: if you have a problem with perceived inequality between Men & Women, you would hardly be able to accept any LDS teachings (just start with the priesthood exclusivity). If your problem is with the idea of anyone being wed to multiple persons simultaneously then you already have a prejudice against any notion of why this would be moral.

And maybe my perception of polygamy is what is just because of the first time I ever gave it thought. Way back when I was basically an inactive Catholic teenager, my first girlfriend was Muslim. This was back in high school, and remember going with a class to the downtown bookfair, and hanging out with another friend of mine who was Muslim, we picked up a couple of pamphlets from a stand where they had Qurans & such things, and one was about Polygamy. When she saw it lying around her response was to actually laugh and say that I could barely handle one woman. And truth be told, thats got to be the reality. A polygamist isn't some nobleman with 30 women in a harem to come over and please him at his whim. We are talking about wives.

Let me put it another way - what makes something, anything, immoral? If the word of God isn't sufficient, then what is your standard? I could argue that an intentional act which infringes on some right of a person (murder infringes on the right to live, stealing does so on the right to property, etc) or causes them suffering. If I give a standard like that, how can a woman, freely choosing to join a polygamous family by marrying a husband who already has 10 wives, with both being honest, supportive, and loving, be an immoral act?

[Thinking]

For instance , in an agrarian society if a man is feeding himself from his labor on a farm he needs to grow and harvest wheat , corn (perhaps oats , barley or alfalfa as well) vegetables , fruit trees , raise chickens , cows , plow horses , etc. In addition he needs to tend to all the household chores and repairs. He needs to provide for his clothing , etc. There is no way that he can supply all his needs for himself.

If he is part of an agrarian society, then maybe he needs to grow a lot of just one or two crops and trade his excess (of which he will have much because he has fewer mouths to feed) with the other farmers in this society for the things which will fulfill his needs.

There's another item to consider. Does having more kids automatically guarantee that the farmer will be able to obtain the land necessary to "grow and harvest wheat , corn (perhaps oats , barley or alfalfa as well) vegetables , fruit trees , raise chickens , cows , plow horses , etc?"

There are so many more things to consider than just "more hands = more product."

[ed2276]

If he is part of an agrarian society, then maybe he needs to grow a lot of just one or two crops and trade his excess (of which he will have much because he has fewer mouths to feed) with the other farmers in this society for the things which will fulfill his needs.

There's another item to consider. Does having more kids automatically guarantee that the farmer will be able to obtain the land necessary to "grow and harvest wheat , corn (perhaps oats , barley or alfalfa as well) vegetables , fruit trees , raise chickens , cows , plow horses , etc?"

There are so many more things to consider than just "more hands = more product."

I realize there are many ways around the problems of meeting ones needs. You are right , specialization and exchange are very effective means for reducing the amount of labor needed and also for increasing health and wealth. It is what has made the American model so successful and powerful.

I was just hypothesizing that in the case of one man trying to provide for himself everything he needs , absent specialization and exchange , more hands make lighter work. I do take your point , though.

[Hawkmoon]

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.

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

The problem in answering this is, at least for me, I’m not buying your premise-- that polygamy is inherently immoral. You keep asking how people can reconcile their faith with this seemingly immoral practice. However, what if one does NOT see polygamy as inherently immoral, but rather morally neutral? In fact, most of the evidence you've brought up has nothing to do with polygamy itself. For example the subjugation of women... obviously you assume one leads to the other, but this is not really the case. So, in the end your problem is with the subjugation of women not with polygamy. The only point that doesn't follow this pattern is your comment that women were not allowed to practice polyandry, and, therefore, a just and moral god would not do this. Of course, your assumption that this constitutes justice and morality is highly questionable to say the least. Furthermore, without knowing the precise reasons God would implement one and not the other leaves us to assume the role of God and prescribe reasons for or against it based on our limited intellect just as you have. In this case, you have determined the God would not do something you find so repugnant ergo it must be immoral.