Polygamy

[johnny]

Lehi,

Why did he not condemn it?

The early Christians condemned it. The early Christians wrote:

Justin Martyr (c.160) rebukes the Jews for allowing polygamy:

"Your imprudent and blind masters [i.e., Jewish teachers] even until this time permit each man to have four or five wives. And if anyone sees a beautiful woman and desires to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob." [ANF, vol. 1, p. 266]

Irenaeus (c.180) condemns the Gnostics for, among other things, polygamy:

"Others, again, following upon Basilides and Carpocrates, have introduced promiscuous intercourse and a plurality of wives..." [ANF, vol. 1, p.353]

Tertullian (c.207) was also explicit:

"Chapter II.-Marriage Lawful, But Not Polygamy. We do not indeed forbid the union of man and woman, blest by God as the seminary of the human race, and devised for the replenishment of the earth and the furnishing of the world, and therefore permitted, yet Singly. For Adam was the one husband of Eve, and Eve his one wife, one woman, one rib. (ANF: Tertullian, To His Wife)

Methodius (cf.290) was clear on the issue, arguing that it had stopped at the time of the Prophets:

"The contracting of marriage with several wives had been done away with from the times of the prophets. For we read, 'Do not go after your lusts, but refrain yourself from your appetites'...And in another place, 'Let your fountain be blessed and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.' This plainly forbids a plurality of wives." [ANF, vol. 6, p.312]

[Neighbor]

Lehi,

The early Christians condemned it. The early Christians wrote:

Justin Martyr (c.160) rebukes the Jews for allowing polygamy:

"Your imprudent and blind masters [i.e., Jewish teachers] even until this time permit each man to have four or five wives. And if anyone sees a beautiful woman and desires to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob." [ANF, vol. 1, p. 266]

Irenaeus (c.180) condemns the Gnostics for, among other things, polygamy:

"Others, again, following upon Basilides and Carpocrates, have introduced promiscuous intercourse and a plurality of wives..." [ANF, vol. 1, p.353]

Tertullian (c.207) was also explicit:

"Chapter II.-Marriage Lawful, But Not Polygamy. We do not indeed forbid the union of man and woman, blest by God as the seminary of the human race, and devised for the replenishment of the earth and the furnishing of the world, and therefore permitted, yet Singly. For Adam was the one husband of Eve, and Eve his one wife, one woman, one rib. (ANF: Tertullian, To His Wife)

Methodius (cf.290) was clear on the issue, arguing that it had stopped at the time of the Prophets:

"The contracting of marriage with several wives had been done away with from the times of the prophets. For we read, 'Do not go after your lusts, but refrain yourself from your appetites'...And in another place, 'Let your fountain be blessed and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.' This plainly forbids a plurality of wives." [ANF, vol. 6, p.312]

Johnny, outbursts of opinion from these early 'fathers' of the Church are why I have no use for their opinions. Their opinions don't really match the depth of the word we have from God. In a previous post I proved that polygamy was commanded by God - but that it was a matter for widows, not under age girls or girls who want to marry someone their own age.

[LeSellers]

The early Christians condemned it.

So? A hundred years later, while the Romans (who invented monogyny in the first place) were attacking them as being atheists and subversives, the non-Apostles start fallin gin line with the Romans. This proves little or nothing.

And, I still wonder why, if polygyny was so abhorrent, the Apostles or Jesus Himself did not simply say, "Don't do it." They did not. Even where it would have been the exact thing to expect, providing it was, in fact, against God's will.

But this just does not happen.

Lehi

[Pahoran]

Anyway, going to the 'way-back' machine, in reading contemporary accounts of polygamy as practiced by the early LDS we can find ample acts of ill will that surely are not anything a man with the Spirit of Christ in him would dare to think, let alone do. John D. Lee's book comes to mind, as the book by the apostate wife of Brigham Young, and many other newspapers, magazines and books of the time give accounts of. The evidence is so overwhelming that it is a folly to try to prove one inaccurate and then try to project it to all accounts.

Actually it isn't. These accounts are not "independent" at all, but rely upon each other. As for the two you mention most prominently: John D. Lee's was "improved" by his non-Mormon lawyer, William Bishop, and Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning's atrocity tale was ghost-written by one J. H. Beadle, who was the fountainhead of much if not most of the 19th century lurid "exposes" of Mormonism. As well as various articles and at least one book in his own name, he also ghost-wrote for William Hickman and Mrs. Fanny Stenhouse.

The old atrocity tales have been thoroughly dissected, examined and taken apart. The verdict: they are garbage.

Regards,

Pahoran

[johnny]

Lehi,

And, I still wonder why, if polygyny was so abhorrent, the Apostles or Jesus Himself did not simply say, "Don't do it." They did not. Even where it would have been the exact thing to expect, providing it was, in fact, against God's will.

There is a new and better covenant. The Apostle Paul calls a man having more than one wife fornication ... In polygamy women are married to the same husband, in polygamy each wife DOES NOT have their own husbands. In 1Cor 7:2 Paul says "avoid fornication ... let every woman have her own husband."

This is false. As I said earlier, I have seven children, and each one has his own father.

How can it be false ... your seven children are SHARING one father. Like I said earlier, if each child has "his own father" then there would be seven unique pairs.

[LeSellers]

Under the New Covenet, the Apostle Paul calls it fornication

You keep saying that, but that does not make it so.

How can it be false ... your seven children are SHARING one father. Like I said earlier, if each child has "his own father" then there would be seven unique pairs.

Your take on this is absurd. The phrase is not his unique father. It is his own father. And that is just the case. If he did not have his own father, he'd be an orphan. As I have not died, he has his own father.

Just so, when a woman marries, she has her own husband, even if that husband has other wives. She has a husband, her own husband. If she did not have her own husband, she'd be unmarried.

Lehi

[johnny]

Lehi,

Just so, when a woman marries, she has her own husband, even if that husband has other wives. She has a husband, her own husband. If she did not have her own husband, she'd be unmarried.

That's my point ... you say "that husband has other wives" ... Paul says "let every man have his own wife" (1Cor 7:2)

1Cor.7

[2] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

[Ron Beron]

Actually it isn't. These accounts are not "independent" at all, but rely upon each other. As for the two you mention most prominently: John D. Lee's was "improved" by his non-Mormon lawyer, William Bishop, and Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning's atrocity tale was ghost-written by one J. H. Beadle, who was the fountainhead of much if not most of the 19th century lurid "exposes" of Mormonism. As well as various articles and at least one book in his own name, he also ghost-wrote for William Hickman and Mrs. Fanny Stenhouse.

The old atrocity tales have been thoroughly dissected, examined and taken apart. The verdict: they are garbage.

Regards,

Pahoran

Not all are garbage for which, many I am sure, bear that approbation. In a 1954 study by Kimball Young of 175 polygamous marriages were found to have 53% highly successful relationships, 25% as moderately successful and 23% as having considerable or severe problems. Of the 72 marriages contracted by General Authorities 39 were involved in marital breakups, including 54 divorces, 26 seperations, and one annulment. The first wife of Wilford Woodruff considered polygamy "loathsome" as well as Vilate Kimball, Heber C. Kimball's wife.

[SquarePeg48]

Actually it isn't. These accounts are not "independent" at all, but rely upon each other. As for the two you mention most prominently: John D. Lee's was "improved" by his non-Mormon lawyer, William Bishop, and Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning's atrocity tale was ghost-written by one J. H. Beadle, who was the fountainhead of much if not most of the 19th century lurid "exposes" of Mormonism. As well as various articles and at least one book in his own name, he also ghost-wrote for William Hickman and Mrs. Fanny Stenhouse.

The old atrocity tales have been thoroughly dissected, examined and taken apart. The verdict: they are garbage.

Regards,

Pahoran

In the case of William Hickman, I would disagree...I am a great-great-grandaughter through his 4th wife. Family lore has it that he was an abusive and violent man; the 9 wives he married after joining the church were not sorry to be free of him when he was excommunicated. However, this had nothing to do with polygamy as an institution, but rather an abusive husband who would abuse a wife or wives, no matter the number or situation.

[Neighbor]

Actually it isn't. These accounts are not "independent" at all, but rely upon each other. As for the two you mention most prominently: John D. Lee's was "improved" by his non-Mormon lawyer, William Bishop, and Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning's atrocity tale was ghost-written by one J. H. Beadle, who was the fountainhead of much if not most of the 19th century lurid "exposes" of Mormonism. As well as various articles and at least one book in his own name, he also ghost-wrote for William Hickman and Mrs. Fanny Stenhouse.

The old atrocity tales have been thoroughly dissected, examined and taken apart. The verdict: they are garbage.

Regards,

Pahoran

No. In his book, Lee made a very specific example of bad behavior that was known to all in the region/area. This was not taken up and proved wrong then because it was true. For either of us to paint a different picture would be akin to the detractors of the resurrection to claim the Jesus never resurrected - they would just have to produce show the guarded and sealed tomb. Roman soldiers most certainly didn't abandon the tomb for fear of twelve scared men and a few women - especially if they were going to pay for it with their lives. Sure, this is a different situation, but the fact that they weren't disproven then speaks loudly.

Or you can continue to think none of those things happened:-) and I'll continue to take their word for it that it did:-)

I sort of tend to believe history as written by first hand accounts.

[Neighbor]

Another aside to the debate. A few years back I'd left home to live in an apartment for a time and was in a support group, counseling and had also joined an internet support group. At the internet site was a young woman who was escaping from and hiding from a polygamy group of FLDS - her and her child. She had been through a lot of abuse. She feared for her life and the life of her child. She mentioned the temple and sex in passing. I thought she had a screw loose. Now that we have some third party invasion it seems her story was true. If that was true, I'd suspect the rest of it was too.

Interesting to note that the FLDS women interviewed on Larry King Live last night, when asked a question about their husbands, would only speak about their children. They didn't seem to care at all about thier husbands... That was really odd.

[JarMan]

My statement here is in relation to underage marriage being an absolute result of too few women of marrying age. This was in response to an argument positted by you that underage marriage is inevitable given polygamy.

I wouldn't say underage marriage is inevitable in polygamous societies. But the polygamous societies I'm familiar with throughout history have very commonly had underage marriage.

If there are no women to marry of marrying age, underage marriage is not a foregone conclusion. Men will not necessarily jump to teenage weddings merely to continue polygamy.

In many cases they absolutely will. Because for men in polygamous societies, multiple wives represent power and prestige. And the non-polygamists who want to marry surely have an incentive to snatch up a girl as soon as she hits the market, so to speak.

Is your argument that polygamy doesn't create a shortage of eligible women? Or is your argument that society won't respond to a shortage of woman with younger brides?

[Pahoran]

In the case of William Hickman, I would disagree...I am a great-great-grandaughter through his 4th wife. Family lore has it that he was an abusive and violent man; the 9 wives he married after joining the church were not sorry to be free of him when he was excommunicated. However, this had nothing to do with polygamy as an institution, but rather an abusive husband who would abuse a wife or wives, no matter the number or situation.

Thanks, SquarePeg. (I didn't even know you were a lady. Duh!) The point, though, is that Hickman's book (which does not, IIRC, show him as an abusive husband) is garbage. It mainly consists of claims to the effect that every crime committed in Utah in the early years was personally ordered by Brigham Young.

No. In his book, Lee made a very specific example of bad behavior that was known to all in the region/area. This was not taken up and proved wrong then because it was true.

Facts, names, dates, please. What precisely was alleged that was "proven true?" That something bad happened? That Brigham personally ordered it? That it was standard LDS practice? What?

Besides, against your one vague memory of a vague anecdote, there are numerous examples of clear falsehoods in Lee/Bishop's account(s). Such as all the "Danites," just for instance.

For either of us to paint a different picture would be akin to the detractors of the resurrection to claim the Jesus never resurrected - they would just have to produce show the guarded and sealed tomb. Roman soldiers most certainly didn't abandon the tomb for fear of twelve scared men and a few women - especially if they were going to pay for it with their lives. Sure, this is a different situation, but the fact that they weren't disproven then speaks loudly.

This is completely irrelevant. Do you have trouble with your attention span, or something?

I sort of tend to believe history as written by first hand accounts.

And so you demonstrate that by clinging to ghost-written gossip and 19th century yellow journalism.

I sort of prefer to give accused people the benefit of the doubt, particularly when the accusations are as plainly scurrilous as those in which you delight to revel. I do that for apostates; I would even do it for you. I do not rejoice in iniquity; it seems--unChristian, somehow.

Not that that should matter to you.

Another aside to the debate. A few years back I'd left home to live in an apartment for a time and was in a support group, counseling and had also joined an internet support group. At the internet site was a young woman who was escaping from and hiding from a polygamy group of FLDS - her and her child. She had been through a lot of abuse. She feared for her life and the life of her child. She mentioned the temple and sex in passing. I thought she had a screw loose. Now that we have some third party invasion it seems her story was true. If that was true, I'd suspect the rest of it was too.

Since the brand new temple at the YFZ ranch is the first and only temple ever built by the FLDS, there is something off about your hearsay tale.

Interesting to note that the FLDS women interviewed on Larry King Live last night, when asked a question about their husbands, would only speak about their children. They didn't seem to care at all about thier husbands... That was really odd.

Not nearly as odd as all the mind-reading and idiotic speculation going on about it. Beaumiers is convinced that they didn't mention their husbands because they were terrified of them; you assume that it is because they don't care about them. If you were to pretend for a moment that you can see these people as functioning human beings, instead of your bigoted notion of "cult" drones, you'd realise (1) that they're not talking about their husbands because they have not been forcibly removed, so they weren't the subject of their immediate concern, and (2) they are probably being careful not to say anything that might incriminate them.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Thinking]

Polygamy does not equate to underage marriage.

Simple math shows that polygamy naturally gravitates towards underage marriage.

Polygamy does not equate to a sexual deviation.

Deviation is something that is different from the norm. I think having more than one wife is different than the norm.

Polygamy does not equate to forced marriage.

How about strongly encouraged marriages using words like what is found in D&C 132?

Now, the practices of the FLDS appear equate to all of the above, but the practice of polygamy is merely incidental.

Incidental? Without polygamy, marriages between older men and teenage girls would almost entirely cease, just like it did in the LDS Church after 1890.

Is there a rational position against the practice of polygamy?

Is there a rational position for the practice of polygamy?

[LeSellers]

For either of us to paint a different picture would be akin to the detractors of the resurrection to claim the Jesus never resurrected - they would just have to produce show the guarded and sealed tomb. Roman soldiers most certainly didn't abandon the tomb for fear of twelve scared men and a few women - especially if they were going to pay for it with their lives. Sure, this is a different situation, but the fact that they weren't disproven then speaks loudly.

Completely off topic, of course, but the scriptural evidence that the guard at Jesus' tomb were Roman soldiers is scant at best.

The word in Matt 27:65 translated "watch" is "κουστωδιαν" (custodian), the Latin word for "sentry". That's where there has been a lot of focus, but the phrase "ye have a watch", does not conclusively prove that the Sanhedrin got a couple of Roman soldiers from Pilate. The way I read it, Pilate told them that they had their own guards, and he wanted nothing more to do with the whole, sordid affair.

The reasons I see it thus are

• He had "washed his hands" of the crucifixion, at least symbolically. This new intervention would be yet one more thing he wanted nothing to do with.
  
• Roman soldiers who abandoned their post, irrespective of what the Sanhedrin told them, would have been executed, just as Korean soldiers who fall asleep on guard are shot, while still asleep.
  
• There was, indeed, a Jewish "temple guard", whose function was to kill (having had Greek and, later, Roman permission) any non-Jew who entered the Temple beyond the court of the Gentiles.
  

Since not in the Roman army, and under the direct control of the Sanhedrin, they would have done exactly as they were instructed, and could do so without fear of being slain for their disobedience.

Lehi

[Neighbor]

Thanks, SquarePeg. (I didn't even know you were a lady. Duh!) The point, though, is that Hickman's book (which does not, IIRC, show him as an abusive husband) is garbage. It mainly consists of claims to the effect that every crime committed in Utah in the early years was personally ordered by Brigham Young.

Facts, names, dates, please. What precisely was alleged that was "proven true?" That something bad happened? That Brigham personally ordered it? That it was standard LDS practice? What?

Besides, against your one vague memory of a vague anecdote, there are numerous examples of clear falsehoods in Lee/Bishop's account(s). Such as all the "Danites," just for instance.

This is completely irrelevant. Do you have trouble with your attention span, or something?

And so you demonstrate that by clinging to ghost-written gossip and 19th century yellow journalism.

Regards,

Pahoran

And Abraham Lincoln didn't give the Gettysburg Address either:-) Come on now, I'm not making fun of your views, so lay off a bit. Yes, perhaps their not wanting to implicate themselves or their husbands is an issue.

......

Sorry, the last time I posted the particular event I was banned for a while. It's that bad. You prove amply that you have no knowledge of what Lee wrote. Do yourself a favor and read the book so you will know how silly your argument really is. "Mormonism Unvieled" by John D. Lee. You can get a reprint very reasonably. An original goes for well over $800.00 because 'someone' tried to destroy all copies with public access.

The one I have in mind is where the Bishop castrates a young man for not surrendering his love for a young lady the Bishop wanted, and by the priesthood authority he nailed them up on the school door for all as a reminder of his authority to take whatever lass he desired.

Per Lee, BY was the most evil man he ever met, but he loved Joseph Smith Jr. Had the book been journalism as you described, there would have been ridicule of JS, not glowing accounts given. No, it was written by JDL my friend. If you have a reasonable reply after you read it, I'll be glad to talk.

[Neighbor]

Completely off topic, of course, but the scant scriptural evidence that the guard at Jesus' tomb were Roman soldiers is sorely lacking.

The word in Matt 27:65 translated "watch" is "κουστωδιαν" (custodian), the Latin word for "sentry". That's where there has been a lot of focus, but the phrase "ye have a watch", does not conclusively prove that the Sanhedrin got a couple of Roman soldiers from Pilate. The way I read it, Pilate told them that they had their own guards, and he wanted nothing more to do with the whole, sordid affair.

The reasons I see it thus are

• He had "washed his hands" of the crucifixion, at least symbolically. This new intervention would be yet one more thing he wanted nothing to do with.
  
• Roman soldiers who abandoned their post, irrespective of what the Sanhedrin told them, would have been executed, just as Korean soldiers who fall asleep on guard are shot, while still asleep.
  
• There was, indeed, a Jewish "temple guard", whose function was to kill (having had Greek and, later, Roman permission) any non-Jew who entered the Temple beyond the court of the Gentiles.
  

Since not in the Roman army, and under the direct control of the Sanhedrin, they would have done exactly as they were instructed, and could do so without fear of being slain for their disobedience.

Lehi

Nice picture. As for the guard, have you ever heard of the Centurian account from a monistary in Turkey that has been authenticated to the first century? It was purported to have been his account of the resurrection. The story was that the Roman Centurian was in charge of the Jewish guard. Pretty amazing account the melds well with the Biblical account. Seems it was from Saint Sophies?? As such I tend to believe it was a mixture of Roman and Jewish guards.... but the point is the tomb was guarded BECAUSE they wanted to PREVENT the followers of Jesus from being able to say He resurrected from the dead by stealing His body. It didn't work!:-)

[LeSellers]

Is there a rational position for the practice of polygamy?

Yes.

It's freedom.

In any population, the ordinal "desirability" of any man to any woman (and that of any woman to any man) could conceivably be measured on a scale running 1~n. An unimaginably complex set of factors would play. However, for simplicity, we could reduce them to "wealth" and "physical attractiveness".

Ten men and ten women live on an island, castaways. Andrew is a skilled hunter, tireless, strong, and with all the possible traits that would make a woman secure (i.e., he's wealthy). He's also physically handsome, suave, etc. Jason, on the other hand, is clumsy, can barely set a trap, and then it rarely captures anything and his spear is rarely sharp, without even a stone point; his hut is nothing but a rude lean-to; he wears only a tattered loincloth. He's the height of poor. Not only that, he's ugly, his left arm is withered, and his nose has been broken several times due to fall and fights.

Anne likes Andrew. Betty likes Andrew, Charlene likes Andrew, ... Joanne likes Andrew. It is possible that, given Jason's undesirability, he would not marry (as no woman would have him) which means that one or more women would choose celibacy rather than marriage to such an undesirable man/men. However, if virtual widowhood were even less desirable than marriage to an undesirable man, the least desirable woman would be hitched to Jason, and their children would be less likely to survive.

In our small community, one man is homosexual. (Lesbians are less common among women than homosexuals among men.) He takes no wife. Now we have another imbalance, and another virtual widow.

Scenario A

According to the monogynous society from when they came, only one of the women can marry her first choice. Andrew, then Brandon, then Cletus, and so on to Evan hold all the power in the mating game. Some or many of the women will be unmarried. Frank, George, and Harold hold little, Irwin and Jason hold none. The women are totally powerless.

Scenario B

According to the polygynous society from when they came, the women hold the power. They all can marry Andrew, until he either refuses another wife or the women decide, individually, that they prefer Brandon and his fewer wives to being one of a larger sisterhood with Andrew.

All of the women would be married (if they chose), and the lower caste men would be those out of luck.

Any arbitrary restriction on marriage is indefensible.

Absent fraud or coercion, givens in the world of truly free men, anyone should be able to marry anyone else he chooses. There should be no age limits, old or young, no restrictions of any kind. Our society has crippled men and women by making everything a matter of governmental intrusion, and our accepting it like sheep only proves that we have lost our most fundamental freedom, the right to dissent.

Polygyny is a successful mating strategy. It has been the most practiced form of marriage throughout history. People claim they are the product of polygyny as if it were somehow special. Everyone has polygynous ancestors, guaranteed.

Lehi

[Thinking]

It's freedom.

In any population, the ordinal "desirability" of any man to any woman (and that of any woman to any man) could conceivably be measured on a scale running 1~n. An unimaginably complex set of factors would play. However, for simplicity, we could reduce them to "wealth" and "physical attractiveness".

If you throw away the other factors, then your model is unrealistic and your argument is therefore invalid.

But let's continue.

Ten men and ten women live on an island, castaways. Andrew is a skilled hunter, tireless, strong, and with all the possible traits that would make a woman secure (i.e., he's wealthy). He's also physically handsome, suave, etc. Jason, on the other hand, is clumsy, can barely set a trap, and then it rarely captures anything and his spear is rarely sharp, without even a stone point; his hut is nothing but a rude lean-to; he wears only a tattered loincloth. He's the height of poor. Not only that, he's ugly, his left arm is withered, and his nose has been broken several times due to fall and fights.

Not only have you thrown out the complex factors, now you are using extreme examples: the perfect man versus the man Wesley described to Prince Humperdink in the Princess Bride.

Anne like Andrew. Betty likes Andrew, Charlene likes Andrew, ... Joanne likes Andrew. It is possible that, given Jason's undesirability, he would not marry (as no woman would have him) which means that one or more women would choose celibacy rather than marriage to such an undesirable man/men. However, if virtual widowhood were even less desirable than marriage to an undesirable man, the least desirable woman would be hitched to Jason, and their children would be less likely to survive.

What about the other eight men? How desirable are each of the women? You're trying to avoid complexity, but it's sneaking right back into the discussion because marriage is a complex relationship.

In our small community, one man is homosexual. (Lesbians are less common among women than homosexuals among men.) He takes no wife. Now we have another imbalance, and another virtual widow.

Are you assuming that all non-lesbians want to get married?

Scenario A

According to the monogynous society from [whence] they came, only one of the women can marry her first choice. Andrew, then Brandon, then Cletus, and so on to Evan hold all the power in the mating game. Some or many of the women will be unmarried. Frank, George, and Harold hold little, Irwin and Jason hold none. The women are totally powerless.

What if Andrew and Brandon want to marry the same woman? What if Cletus also wants to marry her? Now who has the power. Is it OK on this island for a woman to have two husbands? Your simple example is too simple.

Scenario B

According to the polygynous society from when they came, the women hold the power. They all can marry Andrew, until he either refuses another wife or the women decide, individually, that they prefer Brandon and his fewer wives to being one of a larger sisterhood with Andrew.

All of the women would be married (if they chose), and the lower caste men would be those out of luck.

So it's OK for the men to be out of luck?

Any arbitrary restriction on marriage is indefensible.

Perhaps you should consider the fact that monogyny is not arbitrary.

Absent fraud or coercion, ...in the world of truly free men, anyone should be able to marry anyone else he chooses. There should be no age limits, old or young, no restrictions of any kind. Our society has crippled men and women by making everything a matter of governmental intrusion, and our accepting it like sheep only proves that we have lost our most fundamental freedom, the right to dissent.

No restrictions of any kind? Really? None?

Polygyny is a successful mating strategy. It has been the most practiced form of marriage throughout history. People claim they are the product of polygyny as if it were somehow special. Everyone has polygynous ancestors, guaranteed.

And prostitution is the oldest profession. I'll bet that some of my ancestors were criminals. Is it then OK for me to be a criminal?

Try again.

[oceanblue]

Yes.

It's freedom.

I can agree with this.

[Bee Eff]

Is there a rational position for the practice of polygamy?

I don't believe that there is a necessity to rationalize the choice to practice polygamy by those that choose to. They could choose to practice polygamy for any reason they chose. I feel that there needs to be a rationale to limit another's right to behave as they choose, not a rationale to behave as you choose.

[johnny]

Bee Eff,

I don't believe that there is a necessity to rationalize the choice to practice polygamy by those that choose to. They could choose to practice polygamy for any reason they chose. I feel that there needs to be a rationale to limit another's right to behave as they choose, not a rationale to behave as you choose.

I believe a Christian should rationalize the choice to practice polygamy because polygamy is destructive to a Christian marriage. I believe polygamy is a grave offense against the dignity of marriage.

True Christian matrimony is only with the first marriage. Entering into polygamy is committing adultery. Monogamy is upheld as God's design, His will, and His expectation for His people

[T-Bone]

Entering the discussion about 15 pages in, I am going to address the OP. I have to say that there is a big problem with polygamy the way it is practiced. Specifically, the boys who are banished because they are competition for older, more powerful men.

The practice of polygamy is simply demographically unsustainable. If we have roughly 50/50 men and women, and each man is supposed to marry multiple women, what happens to the men who are left over?

Also, the practice of reassigning wives is particularly disgusting to me.

T-Bone

[Bibletruth]

Polygamy does not equate to underage marriage.

Polygamy does not equate to a sexual deviation.

Polygamy does not equate to forced marriage.

Now, the practices of the FLDS appear equate to all of the above, but the practice of polygamy is merely incidental.

Is there a rational position against the practice of polygamy?

or rather, since it seems many missed the point of the question:

Is there a rational position for being against the practice of polygamy?

"Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none." Jacob 2:27

Jacob 2:24 says, â??Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.â?

[Aquilifer]

"Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none." Jacob 2:27

Jacob 2:24 says, â??Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.â?

Hint: read the whole chapter. Or the many posts that already respond to this issue.