Polygamy

[Namaste]

What have "we" "seen", exactly?

The abuses that have already been mentioned on many threads on this board.

[LeSellers]

Normally, I don't care what two consenting adults do together. But from what we've seen over the many years of its practice since 1835, the effect on the children, and a lot of the wives as well, has been devastating. That is the other reason I would oppose it.

"Devastating"? CFR. (Isolated, anecdotal evidence is not a case for your position.)

The abuses that have already been mentioned on many threads on this board.

Did you read the OP?

BF listed those alleged abuses as being not inherent in plural marriage.

Lehi

[SolarPowered]

I... served a mission and all the other callings you can have in a ward.

The abuses that have already been mentioned on many threads on this board.

I must be getting senile; I don't remember those. Please enlighten me, Bishop Namaste.

[Namaste]

"Devastating"? CFR. (Isolated, anecdotal evidence is not a case for your position.)

Lehi

Did you read the OP?

BF listed those alleged abuses as being not inherent in plural marriage.

Lehi

No, LeSellers. I won't go there with you.

I must be getting senile; I don't remember those. Please enlighten me, Bishop Namaste.

I won't go there with you, either.

[Tsuzuki]

In mammals that practice polygyny in nature, the hippocampus (the part of the brain responsible for keeping your stories straight, among other things) is larger in the males than the females. In humans, the male's hippocampus is larger than the female's.

[LeSellers]

No, LeSellers. I won't go there with you.

One, it's "Lehi", as on my Army Commission and life insurance policy.

Two, a call for reference creates a obligation on you, since you were the one to make an unsubstantiated claim.

Three, If you do not want to stay on the topic, why are you participating?

Lehi

[johnny]

Bee Eff,

So, your rationale for being against the practice of polygamy is that it does not show respect for the spouse?

Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive. Conjugal love involves a totality. A man and a wife give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh.

Polygamy is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive. From the beginning is has been man and wife, not wives. From the beginning it has been two, not three or more.

This position calls into question the state of all polygamous individuals in the Bible. What of Abraham, Moses, Israel, etc.? They spoke with God and did not feel that polygamy was a "grave offense against the dignity of marriage", "Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive" or that "polygamy... in fact, directly negates the plan of God." How is such rationally reconciled?

In the Old Testament polygamy it is permitted. In the New Covenant Jesus taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning (Matt 19:5,6).

This is an acceptable position against polygamy being practiced by adherents to the Catholic faith, I concede that.

This is an acceptable position by those who practice the New Covenant, in the New Covenant it is two .. it is a man and a wife.

But what of adherents of other faiths? Do they have no right to personal decision? This rationale is still weak when regarding those that are not Catholic.

Are Mormons under the New Covenant?

[SquarePeg48]

As a divorced LDS woman, I can truthfully say that I would prefer a plural marriage (as in I'd be wife number 2, 3, or whatever) to a worthy, emotionally healthy man preferable by far to being the "only" wife to an adulterous, lying, and abusive husband. It's not the number of people involved, it's the motivation, the honesty, and the genuine love for each member of the family. My example of how polygamy can be a wonderful thing has always been Jacob Hamblin's family; the wives lived in one house and were able to make (by the children's recollections) a wonderful family that had genuine affection and Christlike love, both between Jacob and the wives and among the wives. I do not think our current "serial" monogamy practices are anything like God intended; certainly polygamy cannot be worse!

[Ihearya]

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?

There is nothing wrong with polygamy except that:

1. It should not include minors or anything against people's free agency.

2. It should only exist if that's the Lord's will for our time

3. It should be respected if we believe in it for the eternities

[jadams_4242]

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?

If you You are reffering to polygamy as a heavenly inspired celestial issue, without the underage and mortal commitments. then we cannot and do not understand all that is involved as far as one man having two or more wives in the hearafter. personally i would never have this for myself, {i,m male}. But this is what the lord has instructed. In the celestial sense anyway. And this is how the early l.d.s church started out with the practice, only to have abuses involved as this practice moved along. The f.l.d.s church of today it seems to appear to myelf that there is way too much on underage sex of young girls and it appears as the sole reason for some sect leaders of the f.l.d.s to be living life, is for them to have power,control over everybody within there bounderies, and then on top of it to condone underage sex for the men to be an ok thing. this sort of poygamy is obviously very,very, rational to challenge. but the origanil polygamy of the early l.d.s church was not started to end up ths way, and it did not operate this way until a few took advantage and started abuses. so if anyone can testify as to what the lord knows that we do not know as to the "whys" of celestial marriage to sevearl wives by one man. then and only then can we rationally challenge that type polygamy. So therfore i do not condem that it is not true, i simply condem it for myself, and of course the f.l.d.s type. {of course}.

[Scottie]

On a similar note, what is the problem with homosexual marriages?

[thesometimesaint]

Scottie:

God has said not to.

[Tsuzuki]

Bee Eff,

Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive. Conjugal love involves a totality. A man and a wife give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh.

Polygamy is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive. From the beginning is has been man and wife, not wives. From the beginning it has been two, not three or more.

Until the end, when you die and all marriage bonds are broken, and you might as well be married to a petunia... ...or two.

[Bee Eff]

In mammals that practice polygyny in nature, the hippocampus (the part of the brain responsible for keeping your stories straight, among other things) is larger in the males than the females. In humans, the male's hippocampus is larger than the female's.

This is true in heterosexual men and women. This is one of the evidences cited as support for a genetic cause of homosexuality by those with a limitted understanding of neurophysiology. The brain has a degree of plasticity, behavior can impact the physiological structure of the brain.

[LeSellers]

On a similar note, what is the problem with homosexual marriages?

Not on topic, Scottie, but even if it were, there are more than one level we could take this question to.

If you mean "rationally", that's one thing. If you mean "theologically", that's a whole new ball game.

And, if the target is "politically", we could be here for ages.

In any event, I believe you should start a new topic.

Lehi

[Bee Eff]

There is nothing wrong with polygamy except that:

1. It should not include minors or anything against people's free agency.

2. It should only exist if that's the Lord's will for our time

3. It should be respected if we believe in it for the eternities

These are not polygamy, they are aside considerations. Polygamy itself is what is being examined.

[Scottie]

** deleted as to not derail the thread **

[Tsuzuki]

This is true in heterosexual men and women. This is one of the evidences cited as support for a genetic cause of homosexuality by those with a limitted understanding of neurophysiology. The brain has a degree of plasticity, behavior can impact the physiological structure of the brain.

How would someone with an unlimited understanding of neurophysiology apply this data to the human practice of polygamy?

[Bee Eff]

If you You are reffering to polygamy as a heavenly inspired celestial issue, without the underage and mortal commitments. then we cannot and do not understand all that is involved as far as one man having two or more wives in the hearafter. personally i would never have this for myself, {i,m male}. But this is what the lord has instructed. In the celestial sense anyway. And this is how the early l.d.s church started out with the practice, only to have abuses involved as this practice moved along. The f.l.d.s church of today it seems to appear to myelf that there is way too much on underage sex of young girls and it appears as the sole reason for some sect leaders of the f.l.d.s to be living life, is for them to have power,control over everybody within there bounderies, and then on top of it to condone underage sex for the men to be an ok thing. this sort of poygamy is obviously very,very, rational to challenge. but the origanil polygamy of the early l.d.s church was not started to end up ths way, and it did not operate this way until a few took advantage and started abuses. so if anyone can testify as to what the lord knows that we do not know as to the "whys" of celestial marriage to sevearl wives by one man. then and only then can we rationally challenge that type polygamy. So therfore i do not condem that it is not true, i simply condem it for myself, and of course the f.l.d.s type. {of course}.

You make a number of statements that are in error.

Underage marriage occurs in monogamous marriages as well. This cannot be a reason for one to be against the practice of polygamy, else monogamous marriage must also be decried.

I am unaware of the LDS church having "abuses involved as this practice moved along." CFR

The behavior of an individual is not sufficient to condemn the practice. You have not sufficiently rationalized a position against the practice.

The Church is not against polygamous marriage. The Church is against the current practice of such by its members.

The FLDS type? There is no "type", there is only polygamy. What you condemn is the lifestyle and practices surrounding the FLDS practice of polygamy.

How would someone with an unlimited understanding of neurophysiology apply this data to the human practice of polygamy?

I have no clue. At present the data as to hippocampus size is inconclusive as to being a cause of a behavior or an effect of behavior.

[Bee Eff]

On a similar note, what is the problem with homosexual marriages?

I believe that homosexual marriages are fine if the individual does not have religious obligations that contradict such. I do not condone the lifestyle, but I cannot with a clear conscience deny another's right to live and believe as they will if it does not cause harm to anyone other than those consenting to such.

[Scottie]

I've only skimmed this thread.

Has anyone brought up the point that since there is roughly a 50/50 ratio of men/women that when 1 man takes an additional wife, there is one man who will be left without a wife?

If the most powerful men claim the most wives, there will be MANY peasants men who have no wife at all.

[JarMan]

Polygamy does not equate to underage marriage.

Polygamy usually DOES lead to underage marriage. Since an increasing number of females is needed to sustain the practice, the next place to look once all of the older females are accounted for, is to younger and younger women.

The problem with polygamy in most societies is that it is not sustainable in the long term. One exception is when a significant portion of the men have been eliminated through warfare. Another exception may be when marriage is purely an economic arrangement. In that type of society the wealthier the man, the more wives.

[Bee Eff]

Bee Eff,

Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive. Conjugal love involves a totality. A man and a wife give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh.

Polygamy is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive. From the beginning is has been man and wife, not wives. From the beginning it has been two, not three or more.

In the Old Testament polygamy it is permitted. In the New Covenant Jesus taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning (Matt 19:5,6).

This is an acceptable position by those who practice the New Covenant, in the New Covenant it is two .. it is a man and a wife.

Are Mormons under the New Covenant?

Yes, we are, but not as you and those who believe similarly have interpretted the covenant.

A discussion of LDS vs. Non-LDS theology is off topic here imo. I am not asking why a Christian should or should not practice polygamy.

[Bee Eff]

Polygamy usually DOES lead to underage marriage. Since an increasing number of females is needed to sustain the practice, the next place to look once all of the older females are accounted for, is to younger and younger women.

The problem with polygamy in most societies is that it is not sustainable in the long term. One exception is when a significant portion of the men have been eliminated through warfare. Another exception may be when marriage is purely an economic arrangement. In that type of society the wealthier the man, the more wives.

No, in a situation with too few women to support such, there would be no polygamous marriage. You are suggesting that polygamy results in forced marriage. Underage marriage is a different topic.

If there are no women of marrying age, will monogamy also lead to underage marriage? I suppose we must again condemn monogamy as well.

[Bee Eff]

I've only skimmed this thread.

Has anyone brought up the point that since there is roughly a 50/50 ratio of men/women that when 1 man takes an additional wife, there is one man who will be left without a wife?

If the most powerful men claim the most wives, there will be MANY peasants men who have no wife at all.

So, your position positted here is:

Polygamy is wrong because if everyone were polygamous not all men would be able to marry.

Given this, we must condemn celibacy. If people are celibate someone will be unable to marry.