Polygamy

[Bee Eff]

It is not by nature "evil", only through practice. Men or women have a tendency to rule unjustly in a situation where their is unequal power sharing. This is particularly true in marriage. In a 1:1 relationship then men and women have a willingness to share and are equal partners. In an unequal relationship then women become less powerful and therefore less important while the men become more important and the center of attention. Why would we want that? Polygamy is not only illegal, but immoral.

In a 1:1 ratio marriage, men are typically in possession of a larger degree of "power", or at least this has been the case for much of history and among much of current human marriages. This equality argument is weak and not adequate to sufficiently defend a position againt polygamy. In a polygamous relationship the ration tilts in favor of the women, from a simple numbers perspective polygamy approaches the probability that the unequal nature of marriage should shift towards the women.

[Ron Beron]

'Bee Eff' writes,

Is this not true of monogamy?

Not as much. While there are certainly those who abuse any relationship polygamous relationships seem to have been and continue to be hard and even disastrous for the women.

An unsubstantiated claim. If this were true, then a Biblical religion could consider themselves justified in continuing with such a belief. You take too much liberty with the character of the prophets of the OT here.

Not with the character, but with the social customs. I am afraid you are unfamiliar with primogeniture and marriage laws within the OT. A simple read of the 10 Commandments will illustrate my point.

17 You shall not covet your neighbourâ??s house; you shall not covet your neighbourâ??s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

In this simple phrase women are connected with ownership of oxes, donkeys, and other chattel.

Then you are a sad individual.

Hardly, I have one great wife and if you accept polygamy then are living in a illegal and immoral relationship. It is not conceivable for a man to "equally yoked" if there are others involved.

Having more than one child causes one to love more than one child. Is it possible that love can be distributed equally? Perhaps we should condemn plural child birth as well.

How can you equate the love of a child with the love for a woman? This is an untenable argument. The human heart can handle the unique demands of familial love in a multiple way. I can love my mother and father with all my other relationships, but I intimate love is only the most rewarding when it is shared with one. Remember,... "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Where does it say many?

I am questioning such societal position with this thread. If I as a member of said society questions such, then society as a whole is not unanimous in its position on said subject.

Nor is society unanimous on homosexual relationships. We are discussing society as a whole not the aberrations of society.

I believe that the issues that occurred with FLDS children are a result of a society that denied the FLDS the right to practice polygamous marriage openly. I believe that had the marriages occurred in the view of the public there would not have been the underage marriages that occurred nor would there have been the forced marriages.

The situation occurred not because of multiple marriages but because of child rape. Even if ostensibly covered by marriage it is still illegal.

So, the need for a law that may prove difficult in creating is sufficient to deny someone the right to decide how they will practice marriage? Monogamous marriage and divorce have shown to be disastrous in adjudicating family law in the case of divorce. Perhaps we should make all marriage illegal.

Now, your begging the question. Some are disastrous some are not. In the case of polygamous marriages any estates would have to be settled between multiple wives and children. Even monogamous relationship have other claims on estates, such as mistresses, usually end in some very disappointing results.

[Bee Eff]

I suppose so.

If a society existed where a woman could choose to be a polygamist wife of a man with power, or a monogamous wife of an unimportant, but loving man, I see no problem letting the society gain that balance. My guess is that the majority of women would choose to be in a monogamous relationship.

I agree, I believe the choice should be up to the individuals involved. I believe we have issues such as the FLDS situation in Texas because we have made the practice illegal and thus the marriages are performed illegally without governmental oversight.

[Ihearya]

Agreed. The Church merely stopped the practice of polygamy. It also stated that a member of the Church that practiced it was doing so at a time when the Church had stated that such was not condoned. The Manifesto does not speak to condemning plural marriage, it merely states a cessation of current practice.

Precisely.

[Ron Beron]

In a 1:1 ratio marriage, men are typically in possession of a larger degree of "power", or at least this has been the case for much of history and among much of current human marriages. This equality argument is weak and not adequate to sufficiently defend a position againt polygamy. In a polygamous relationship the ration tilts in favor of the women, from a simple numbers perspective polygamy approaches the probability that the unequal nature of marriage should shift towards the women.

Where's your evidence of this? Prominent Utah educator and son of a polygamous family stated, "I doubt there was a woman in the church who was in any way connected with polygamy who was not heartsick....They would not admit it in public because of their loyalty to the church and the brothers and sisters."

[SolarPowered]

Prominent Utah educator and son of a polygamous family stated, "I doubt there was a woman in the church who was ina y way connected with polygamy who was not heartsick....They would [not] admit it in public because of their loyalty to the church and the brothers and sisters."

That seems extremely patronizing--"They never said it, but I know what they were thinking."

(If I incorrectly corrected your post, I apologize, and take back my comment.)

[maupayman]

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?

Interesting points Bee Eff, I would say that human nature being what it is, prober polygamy practices are highly unlikely. These evidences can be seen in every polygamist group.

[Ron Beron]

That seems extremely patronizing--"They never said it, but I know what they were thinking."

(If I incorrectly corrected your post, I apologize, and take back my comment.)

He was probably in a position to have known it given the closeness he had with his family. As to the correction it is good to have an editor. I was speed typing from a book and after proofing for errors some occasionally slip by.

[Ihearya]

I agree, I believe the choice should be up to the individuals involved. I believe we have issues such as the FLDS situation in Texas because we have made the practice illegal and thus the marriages are performed illegally without governmental oversight.

Certain things are ruled without the consent of the governed. In doing so, ultimate power over the choices of the individual in regards to his pursuit of happiness becomes limited. The laws of God are not necessarily the same laws of men. Polygamy is one of those issues where the choices of the individual is ruled by the law of the land.

On the other hand, I think it's perfectly acceptable and a moral duty to protect children against any form of sexual abuse disguised as a polygamous practice.

If we are really adamant about 'the law of the land' against polygamy, the same standard that's being applied against polygamous groups should also be applied towards those breaking the laws of the land in other forms.

It's not necessarily nice to cast stones at one group while asking for compassion towards another, when both are violating laws. Of course, we're being told that the only reason for the invasion of the compound is because of the allegations of abuse not just because of the law of the land against the practice of polygamy.

[Ron Beron]

If we are really adamant about 'the law of the land' against polygamy, the same standard that's being applies against polygamous groups should be applied towards those breaking the laws of the land in other forms. It's not necessarily nice to cast stones at one group while asking for compassion towards another, when both are violating laws. Of course, we're being told that the only reason for the invasion of the compound is because of the allegations of abuse not just because of the law of the land against the practice of polygamy.

What other examples of double standards are you thinking of? Polygamy per se is not illegal, but bigamy is. That plus the added evil dimension of child rape have been the grounds for legal action.

[SolarPowered]

He was probably in a position to have known it given the closeness he had with his family.

Perhaps. His statement sounds to me like he is assuming a great deal that is not in evidence.

I don't pretend to know one way or another. I'm just extremely leery of people deciding on behalf of polygamous women that they were miserable.

As to the correction it is good to have an editor. I was speed typing from a book and after proofing for errors some occasionally slip by.

No problem. I'm probably in the bottom quartile for typos here. My fingers often seem to type something other than what my mind is thinking. (Perhaps I'm related to Dr. Strangelove... )

[Bee Eff]

Not as much. While there are certainly those who abuse any relationship polygamous relationships seem to have been and continue to be hard and even disastrous for the women.

Illegal polygamous relationships seem to have been and continue to be hard and even disastrous for the women.

If the practice were legalized such families would be in the public, not hidden as they are. You cannot claim that the fugitive manner they are forced to practice polygamy does not lend to such. Legal polygamy has never shown such. Please provide evidence that polygamy in a natural legal state results in a disastrous state of affairs for women and children. Polygamy is practiced legally in the world currently and in legal areas I am unaware of such "disastrous" states.

Not with the character, but with the social customs. I am afraid you are unfamiliar with primogeniture and marriage laws within the OT. A simple read of the 10 Commandments will illustrate my point.

17 You shall not covet your neighbourâ??s house; you shall not covet your neighbourâ??s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

In this simple phrase women are connected with ownership of oxes, donkeys, and other chattel.

Covet implies desire. The verses you provide do not imply ownership unless you choose to believe such.

Genesis 2:23-24

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

You believe that this implies a belief as to ownership?

Hardly, I have one great wife and if you accept polygamy then are living in a illegal and immoral relationship. It is not conceivable for a man to "equally yoked" if there are others involved.

I believe it possible, you believe it is not. Just becuase you believe yourself incapable does not make it fact. Who are you to deny another's right to decide that for themselves?

How can you equate the love of a child with the love for a woman? This is an untenable argument. The human heart can handle the unique demands of familial love in a multiple way. I can love my mother and father with all my other relationships, but I intimate love is only the most rewarding when it is shared with one. Remember,... "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Where does it say many?

I do equate them. I do not believe sex is a part of love. Sex is a part of marriage, not a part of love.

I know a polygamist that practices it in a manner I view as acceptable. He loves each of his wives in the same manner I love my one wife. His wives believe this is so and so does he. I would not claim that he did not, I have witnessed that he does.

If I were a polygamist I would leave my father and his mother only once, and I would cleave unto my wife and we would be one flesh. This verse says nothing about my life following this.

Nor is society unanimous on homosexual relationships. We are discussing society as a whole not the aberrations of society.

Please read back on my position on homosexual marriage.

The situation occurred not because of multiple marriages but because of child rape. Even if ostensibly covered by marriage it is still illegal.

One of my points in the OP.

Now, your begging the question. Some are disastrous some are not. In the case of polygamous marriages any estates would have to be settled between multiple wives and children. Even monogamous relationship have other claims on estates, such as mistresses, usually end in some very disappointing results.

That is what I stated.

I do not wish to discuss the theological support, or lack thereof, for polygamy. The question is to a general position, including non-Biblically based individuals. The religious aspect is irrelevant when discussing if non-Bible based individuals may practice polygamy or not.

[SolarPowered]

Of course, we're being told that the only reason for the invasion of the compound is because of the allegations of abuse not just because of the law of the land against the practice of polygamy.

That is because they were not, in the eyes of the law, practicing polygamy. The men married only one wife. The other women were simply women they were having sex with. Unfortunately, adultery is not illegal in most or all of these United States.

[Bee Eff]

Where's your evidence of this? Prominent Utah educator and son of a polygamous family stated, "I doubt there was a woman in the church who was in any way connected with polygamy who was not heartsick....They would not admit it in public because of their loyalty to the church and the brothers and sisters."

The burden of proof is on the other side. Your statement to a "prominent Utah educator and son of a polygamous family" is mere speculation on his part. I have experience with a polygamous family, they are happy.

[Ron Beron]

Perhaps. His statement sounds to me like he is assuming a great deal that is not in evidence.

I don't pretend to know one way or another. I'm just extremely leery of people deciding on behalf of polygamous women that they were miserable.

You will find some even within the same households who would argue both pro and con on a polygamous life. One daughter who lived through it stated, "Polygamy is alright when properly carried out...on a shovel". Another favorite of mine was reported to have told his wife that he had received a revelation to take a second wife. His wife promptly reported back to him that she too had a received a revelation to, "shoot any woman who became his plural wife."

The burden of proof is on the other side. Your statement to a "prominent Utah educator and son of a polygamous family" is mere speculation on his part..

It is not speculation when one is an eyewitness to such events.

I have experience with a polygamous family, they are happy

I bet you do.

[Bee Eff]

Interesting points Bee Eff, I would say that human nature being what it is, prober polygamy practices are highly unlikely. These evidences can be seen in every polygamist group.

What of the United Arab Emirates? Polygamy exists there. A friend of mine at university was a child of a polygamous family, and he claims that family life was good and all the women and children were happy.

Also, I know of a man in a non-LDS, non-FLDS, group that has a happy family without these problems.

"Every" is a poor choice of terms.

[Bee Eff]

Certain things are ruled without the consent of the governed. In doing so, ultimate power over the choices of the individual in regards to his pursuit of happiness becomes limited. The laws of God are not necessarily the same laws of men. Polygamy is one of those issues where the choices of the individual is ruled by the law of the land.

On the other hand, I think it's perfectly acceptable and a moral duty to protect children against any form of sexual abuse disguised as a polygamous practice.

If we are really adamant about 'the law of the land' against polygamy, the same standard that's being applied against polygamous groups should also be applied towards those breaking the laws of the land in other forms.

It's not necessarily nice to cast stones at one group while asking for compassion towards another, when both are violating laws. Of course, we're being told that the only reason for the invasion of the compound is because of the allegations of abuse not just because of the law of the land against the practice of polygamy.

I believe the "law of the land" concerning polygamist and homosexual marriage should be revisited and assessed as to whether such laws are truly just.

[Ron Beron]

What of the United Arab Emirates? Polygamy exists there. A friend of mine at university was a child of a polygamous family, and he claims that family life was good and all the women and children were happy.

Also, I know of a man in a non-LDS, non-FLDS, group that has a happy family without these problems.

"Every" is a poor choice of terms.

Anecdotal evidence is at best inconsistent and at worst completely unverifiable.

[flex]

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 honest and especially rational about any religion. rational and religion in the same sentence is a paradox.

polygamy itself might not be a religious invention tho and in that context one could argue rationally pro or against polygamy.

flds practice of polygamy is not incidental. it is a practice preached by js.

[Ron Beron]

I believe the "law of the land" concerning polygamist and homosexual marriage should be revisited and assessed as to whether such laws are truly just.

Would you also equally feel that incestous marriage or bestial marriage should be "revisited'?

there is NOTHING honest and especially rational about any religion. rational and religion in the same sentence is a paradox.

polygamy itself might not be a religious invention tho and in that context one could argue rationally pro or against polygamy.

flds practice of polygamy is not incidental. it is a practice preached by js.

JS never practiced the FLDS form of polygamy.

[Bee Eff]

It is not speculation when one is an eyewitness to such events.

It is third party. He cannot speak to the feelings of thoise he observed. As far as that goes, my observation is just as valid.

I bet you do.

You show a poor character when you attack me in this manner. Please avoid doing so. I am not a polygamist if such is your assertion with this.

The family I reference is composed of 1 man and 6 wives with children.

Anecdotal evidence is at best inconsistent and at worst completely unverifiable.

Which is what your "prominent Utah educator and son of a polygamous family" statement was.

there is NOTHING honest and especially rational about any religion. rational and religion in the same sentence is a paradox.

polygamy itself might not be a religious invention tho and in that context one could argue rationally pro or against polygamy.

flds practice of polygamy is not incidental. it is a practice preached by js.

I wasn't speaking about religion. I was speaking about the practice of polygamy and a position against such.

[Bernard Gui]

Why is polygamy illegal but multiple un-married partners with multiple

children is ok?

Bernard

[Bee Eff]

Would you also equally feel that incestous marriage or bestial marriage should be "revisited'?

Incestuous practiced by consenting adults would be socially abhorrent, but I do not see a rational need for it to be illegal regardless of my personal views.

Bestiality is a severe sexual deviation that shows undeniable psychosis, it would be a disservice to not correct such behavior. Also, how would one assertain the consent of the animal?

[Ron Beron]

'Bee Eff' states,

It is third party. He cannot speak to the feelings of thoise he observed. As far as that goes, my observation is just as valid.

Not if he was a personal witness which he was.

You show a poor character when you attack me in this manner. Please avoid doing so. I am not a polygamist if such is your assertion with this.

And you as well if you propose to defend polygamy while LDS. It is inconsitent with modern LDS ideals and you know it. As long as anyone in the church defends polygamy they are fair game. I thing Pres. Hinckley said it well,

If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" (

A of F 1:12

). One cannot obey the law and disobey the law at the same time.

Which is what your "prominent Utah educator and son of a polygamous family" statement was.

Not if the following criteria are employed

a) The number of eyewitnesses, testimonials and claims.

b The consistency of the observations and claims.

c) The credibility of the witnesses.

d) The clarity of and proximity of the observation.

e) The state of mind of the witnesses.

In this case we have evidence of the above.

[SolarPowered]

Why is polygamy illegal but multiple un-married partners with multiple

children is ok?

Bernard

Because if we made adultery illegal, two-thirds of Congress would be in prison.