Polygamy

[Ron Beron]

Strong statement about unlawfulness in practicing polygamy. The same strong statement should apply to other unlawful issues today involving members. There is a double-standard that's hard to accept.

Again, I don't really see the double-standard. The church is uniquely sensitive to the practice of polygamy while other crimes and unethical practices are treated in an umbrella denuciation, e.g., murder, drugs, etc.

[Neighbor]

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?

Of course there is!

Jesus, speaking to questions of marriage in His day, said, 'From the beginning it has not been so.' Jesus pointed to what Moses relayed by revelation that man was created - male and female. That is one man and one woman. Traveling down the roadway of the Scripture we see the first polygamist was a very sinful man. Moving down further we do find that God made provision for polygamy in the name of a man who died without heir to his name - that the brother of the man was to raise up seed for him through his wife - thereby making polygamy a commandment of God in certain situations.

It was so binding as to cause God to strike a man dead who refused to 'do his duty' in the matter.

Yet God did not command this for everyone as He did with 'thou shalt not kill'.

The kings of Israel were commanded NOT to take other wives, but they disobeyed and the practice soon lead to turning away from the true God which resulted in the loss of the earthly kingdom to go into captivity of their enemies to punish them and bring them to repentance.

So that is history...

As for reason:

Take the situation today of the 'Lost Boys'. Look at the ratio of births between men and women. There is not a huge imbalance between them, that would show the need for polygamy.

God says it is not good for man to be alone, so He made a woman for the man. God loves each of us. He sends blessings upon the evil and the good. Each man should have a wife.

I'm tempted to remind you all of the Bishop who wanted the young lady whose fiance refused to give her up to the Bishop's priesthood authority, but that his and her love was true to each the other.

Polygamy is not of God except as He already has commanded, and that is about widows, not young women.

[SquarePeg48]

Admittedly, I've just skimmed over the posts since page 4, but as far as the supposed 1:1 ratio of women to men in the population, that is not accurate. The statistics are actually something like 48.5% male to 51.5% female in late adolescence and adulthood, (or about 49% to 51%), rising somewhat as years go by as far as female to male ratio. This means that at any given time, there are 2% of the females who are unable to have a marriage partner without the option of polygamy available. So I would think that polygamy might actually be a realistic practice, though limited in scope and number of participants.

[katherine the great]

Official Declaration 1. It's in the Doctrine and Covenants, part of our canon.

It seems a bit odd that you'd participate in this LDS discussion forum without even knowing the basics of our faith.

LeSellers, FYI: Not knowing an abbreviation is not the same as not knowing the basics of our faith.

[Ihearya]

Again, I don't really see the double-standard. The church is uniquely sensitive to the practice of polygamy while other crimes and unethical practices are treated in an umbrella denuciation, e.g., murder, drugs, etc.

Not necessarily. Polygamy is used as a defense to justify illegal immigration, for example:

"...Furthermore, Mormon polygamists fled to Mexico in the late 1800s to escape prosecution. They practiced plural marriage there contrary to Mexican law. Later, during the Mexican revolution, their children returned â?? undocumented, Solorzano notes â?? to Utah for work..."

Source: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635153068,00.html

So, to many, that justifies unlawful practices. What I am saying is that polygamy/bigamy is about the law. If we want to be adamant about lawfulness, our actions and words should ethically encompass everything not just one particular group of people. The big beef with the FLDS now is over alleged unlawful practices.

Well, there are unlawful practices going on all day long involving illegal immigration and yet, we have chosen to look the other way. That to me is a form of double-standard. If we believe in sustaining the law of the land, we can't pick and choose which groups we ignore, condone or go against. Everyone should be treated the same, under the law and according to the law. Why pick on the polygamists and look the other way, rationalize and justify while another group is being just as unlawful if not more?

[LeSellers]

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.

It may be that most women would choose monogamy, but not all would. Which means that they, given a legal prohibition on polygyny, would be forced to choose among breaking the law, having a less-desirable husband, or having no husband at all.

The fact is that many women, some of them very "desirable" in their own right (i.e., beautiful, wealthy, talented, very intelligent, etc.), choose to be less than wives, just mistresses, to very desirable (typically very wealthy or famous) men. Most of these women, I'd say virtually all, know their man is married to another, and might other mistresses, as well.

Polygyny is not as distasteful to women as some would have us believe.

Lehi

[wanderer]

The problem that I can see is that I do not know of a study of polygamy that can do it justice. It needs to be done in an open society where the women are free to choose polygamy or reject it.

This is the key issue. It is not an acceptable practice even between adults when any or all of the partners are coerced by the thought of some eternal reward or punishment, based on their decision whether to practice or not. And, as is the case with marriage and divorce as we know it, any partner should be able to get out of a polygamist lifestyle when and if he/she chooses. It should not be done to the detriment of anyone involved, including any and all children that they have.

[Bee Eff]

'Bee Eff' writes,

I absolutely disagree. Heber J. Grant stated in an official declaration,

I think that it says it in quite certain terms.

He is speaking of LDS practicing Polygamy. Not in reference to the general concept of polygamy.

[Bee Eff]

Bee Eff, sounds to me like you are using the word "polygamy" (multiple marriage) when perhaps the more precise term would be "polygyny" (multiple wives).

In your opinion, is there a rational position against the practice of "polyandry" (multiple husbands)?

I do not see there being a need for differentiation. I could us the term marriage in relation to any form. This discussion can/could include homosexual mariage, polygyny or polyandry or any combination thereof. I do not feel that there is adequate rationale to deny another the choice in the form they participate in, if that individual does not have a religious constraint on such.

[Bee Eff]

Of course there is!

Jesus, speaking to questions of marriage in His day, said, 'From the beginning it has not been so.' Jesus pointed to what Moses relayed by revelation that man was created - male and female. That is one man and one woman. Traveling down the roadway of the Scripture we see the first polygamist was a very sinful man. Moving down further we do find that God made provision for polygamy in the name of a man who died without heir to his name - that the brother of the man was to raise up seed for him through his wife - thereby making polygamy a commandment of God in certain situations.

It was so binding as to cause God to strike a man dead who refused to 'do his duty' in the matter.

Yet God did not command this for everyone as He did with 'thou shalt not kill'.

The kings of Israel were commanded NOT to take other wives, but they disobeyed and the practice soon lead to turning away from the true God which resulted in the loss of the earthly kingdom to go into captivity of their enemies to punish them and bring them to repentance.

So that is history...

As for reason:

Take the situation today of the 'Lost Boys'. Look at the ratio of births between men and women. There is not a huge imbalance between them, that would show the need for polygamy.

God says it is not good for man to be alone, so He made a woman for the man. God loves each of us. He sends blessings upon the evil and the good. Each man should have a wife.

I'm tempted to remind you all of the Bishop who wanted the young lady whose fiance refused to give her up to the Bishop's priesthood authority, but that his and her love was true to each the other.

Polygamy is not of God except as He already has commanded, and that is about widows, not young women.

As I have stated often throughout this thread, what of those that are not believers in the Bible? There is no religious reason for them to not practice such. Do you believe that they should be held to a religious directive that they do not believe in?

Also, and again, I won't argue the Biblical stance on polygamy. That is irrelevant to the thread.

[GingerRed]

You haven't talked to many single LDS women, have you? There is a massive shortage of available men in the Church.

I agree!!! I am a 50 year old LDS single and never married ( not for lack of trying...lol) You take my 40 to 50 year age group and we are seriously lacking in good decent LDS men...as for the comment about us women setting our standards too high? I say it's the MEN who have the problem....they want 'young chicks', not mature women their own age....and they seem to still want that 'trophy' on thier arm...it seems the older they get, the more picky they are about 'looks'....I can speak from experiance as I have actively lived in the Utah LDS single scene since my 20's...I've seen it all, heard it all, been there, done that and bought the T-shirt...lol

As for polygamy? I would rather stay single and celibate then EVER be a polygamist wife!! ewww!

[Changeling]

In response to my question about polyandry, Bee Eff wrote:

"I do not see there being a need for differentiation. I could us the term marriage in relation to any form. This discussion can/could include homosexual mariage, polygyny or polyandry or any combination thereof. I do not feel that there is adequate rationale to deny another the choice in the form they participate in, if that individual does not have a religious constraint on such."

Changeling replies:

In that case, stipulating that we're talking about relationships between consenting adults, I completely agree with you.

[Bee Eff]

As for polygamy? I would rather stay single and celibate then EVER be a polygamist wife!! ewww!

Which is the point of the thread, choice.

You and any other individual should have the right to choose whether you practice unmarried celibacy, monogamous marriage or some form of polygamy. I do not believe there to be adequate rationale to deny another this right of choice. I use the concept of polygamy as a test case as I feel that it provides optimal grounding to assess the acceptability of denying another such a choice.

I do not support forced marriage of any type. I do not support underage marriage of any type. I do not believe that such are inherent in a polygamous marriage.

I do not believe that I or anyone else has the right to deny another that does not believe as I do the right to practice marriage as they choose, providing that such marriage is consented to by all parties involved. The issue of children is separate from the issue of marriage.

Child abuse issues are already legislated for, a polygamous family would be under the same scrutiny as any other family. Abuse does not change based on setting. Thus abuse of children is not a factor with polygamy, it is a factor with child rearing.

[JarMan]

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.

Your assumption that polygamy will somehow not occur when there are "too few women to support such" is not correct. Polygamy will occur if it is allowed regardless of the ratio between men and women.

[Bee Eff]

Your assumption that polygamy will somehow not occur when there are "too few women to support such" is not correct. Polygamy will occur if it is allowed regardless of the ratio between men and women.

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.

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.

[alter idem]

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.

No actually, we are seeing what happens in a society which practices polygamy and there are not enough women of marrying age to support it. They expel the extra males (the young men who are dropped on the streets of St. George we call "lost boys") and they drop the marrying age to add eligible females to the marriage pool.

We can see from the FLDS that they do not end the practice just because the women become scarce.

[alter idem]

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.

Uh, yes they do. That is the reason the Jeffs FLDS are marrying younger and younger girls. Med do jump to marrying teenagers in order to continue polygamy. They also will marry into incestuous unions they would not have in the past because their society is so closed and they are not bringing in new converts.

The FLDS are not going to discontinue polygamy just because wives are becoming scarce. They will change the rules to fit their needs--which is to continue their marriage practice regardless of anything else.

[Bee Eff]

No actually, we are seeing what happens in a society which practices polygamy and there are not enough women of marrying age to support it. They expel the extra males (the young men who are dropped on the streets of St. George we call "lost boys") and they drop the marrying age to add eligible females to the marriage pool.

We can see from the FLDS that they do not end the practice just because the women become scarce.

We can see that the FLDS did not end the practice. We do not see anything but a single case.

What we see is that, given a closed and separated community without oversight of the general public, people often do things that are viewed as immoral from the perspective of the general public.

It is obvious from historical information that any single group or individual given too much power and no checks or balances often results in actions that are not in line with the morallity of the general populace.

[alter idem]

We can see that the FLDS did not end the practice. We do not see anything but a single case.

What we see is that, given a closed and separated community without oversight of the general public, people often do things that are viewed as immoral from the perspective of the general public.

It is obvious from historical information that any single group or individual given too much power and no checks or balances often results in actions that are not in line with the morallity of the general populace.

You are speaking in generalities. But I am citing a real example; The Jeffs' FLDS group which contradicts your generality.

Your generality that if there are not enough women, a society will stop practicing polygamy is not true when we consider the FLDS. They practice it for religious reasons so they are going to continue it even if they need to make changes to their beliefs to accomodate the practice.

In order to keep the practice alive, Jeffs' FLDS have resorted over time to allowing incestuous unions, underage marriages and the destruction of families (taking the wives and children away from one man and giving them to another) and expelling young men from the community for minor infractions to lower the number of males wanting wives.

I'm certain the founding FLDS members--their grandparents and great-grandparents would have condemned these actions as "immoral" just as our society does.

Warren Jeffs does as he pleases. Earlier FLDS leaders forbid a man to marry any of his fathers' wives, but Warren Jeffs did just that--something I think most would consider "immoral" and which even his own group considered "immoral" and yet he ignored that.

[Bee Eff]

You are speaking in generalities. But I am citing a real example; The Jeffs' FLDS group which contradicts your generality.

Your generality that if there are not enough women, a society will stop practicing polygamy is not true when we consider the FLDS. They practice it for religious reasons so they are going to continue it even if they need to make changes to their beliefs to accomodate the practice.

In order to keep the practice alive, Jeffs' FLDS have resorted over time to allowing incestuous unions, underage marriages and the destruction of families (taking the wives and children away from one man and giving them to another) and expelling young men from the community for minor infractions to lower the number of males wanting wives.

I'm certain the founding FLDS members--their grandparents and great-grandparents would have condemned these actions as "immoral" just as our society does.

Warren Jeffs does as he pleases. Earlier FLDS leaders forbid a man to marry any of his fathers' wives, but Warren Jeffs did just that--something I think most would consider "immoral" and which even his own group considered "immoral" and yet he ignored that.

You are citing polygamy as causative which is not necessarily true. Too many other variables exist to claim that the practice of polygamy was the causative factor in the actions of the FLDS.

Also, you are citing one example that is replete with confounding factors in determining causation.

One example is not sufficient. This example is simply a stereotype. The news has shown families that exist in harmony and without underage or forced marriage, yet you focus on the single instance where polygamy follows the stereotype feared by many.

[Ihearya]

I agree!!! I am a 50 year old LDS single and never married ( not for lack of trying...lol) You take my 40 to 50 year age group and we are seriously lacking in good decent LDS men...as for the comment about us women setting our standards too high? I say it's the MEN who have the problem....they want 'young chicks', not mature women their own age....and they seem to still want that 'trophy' on thier arm...it seems the older they get, the more picky they are about 'looks'....I can speak from experiance as I have actively lived in the Utah LDS single scene since my 20's...I've seen it all, heard it all, been there, done that and bought the T-shirt...lol

As for polygamy? I would rather stay single and celibate then EVER be a polygamist wife!! ewww!

You've stated the truth. I have a friend who's in his early 50s. His ideal is woman in her early to later 30s. He wants them blonde and skinny oh, and intelligent, self-sufficient and financially stable for fear that a divorce might take away his life's savings. A possible reason for men being this way is the notion that by dating and marrying someone their age, it will show their age! There are men out there who would feel great having a younger woman in their arms. It would make them feel younger. But hey, 40 and 50s...That's not old. Starting talking old when you hit 65. Even then, there are people in their 70's who skii 3-4 times a week. Age is relative to one's frame of mind and body condition. Also, in other countries, many younger women prefer older, more mature men that can take care of them as opposed to men their age who still live at home with mom and dad.

[Nofear]

I do not believe that I or anyone else has the right to deny another that does not believe as I do the right to practice marriage as they choose, providing that such marriage is consented to by all parties involved. The issue of children is separate from the issue of marriage.

Marriage isn't about "rights". It is a contract not just between the two individuals but also with society. The community affords the married couple recognition of certain rights. The married couple assumes some basic responsibilities. It is most distinctly a give and take. But, you probably agree with all that.

So, way back when you posted, "Is there a rational position for being against the practice of polygamy?", I read that question as, "By allowing polygamy, would our society be unaffected, harmed, or benefited?"

For my part, I'm not sure. If society were more righteous, I can see the allowance of the practice of polygamy as being quite beneficial. But, a wicked society could never pull it off. It would be ruinous.

[alter idem]

You are citing polygamy as causative which is not necessarily true. Too many other variables exist to claim that the practice of polygamy was the causative factor in the actions of the FLDS actions.

Also, you are citing one example that is replete with confounding factors in determining causation.

One example is not sufficient. This example is simply a stereotype. The news has shown families that exist in harmony and without underage or forced marriage, yet you focus on the single instance where polygamy follows the stereotype feared by many.

Sorry, but I think in the Jeffs' FLDS sect, Polygamy is the cause--as it is the one and only reason for their whole existence--and the need to continue this practice causes them to do whatever they have to to be able to keep it alive.

You made this statement, which is what I was initially responding to:

No, in a situation with too few women to support such, there would be no polygamous marriage.

I questioned your blanket statement because it is not true, as we can see as we observe Jeff's FLDS sect. It is also not true for the Kingstons as well. Neither of these groups has abandoned the practice because there are two few women to sustain it. They have just changed what they consider acceptable, so they can continue it.

[alter idem]

I do not believe that I or anyone else has the right to deny another that does not believe as I do the right to practice marriage as they choose, providing that such marriage is consented to by all parties involved. The issue of children is separate from the issue of marriage.

Well, I sure don't agree.

You can't just allow polygamy or same-sex marriage and think it will stop at that. If everyone is allowed to do as they please, then all limits to marriage will be challenged. You think "age of consent" laws will stand up if other barriers are broken down? "Age of Consent" laws will be the next thing they challenge--after they get their way with the marriage laws.

There are sometimes good reasons for limiting our "freedoms"--especially as a society degenerates into moral relativity. Limitations can help protect and uphold moral codes which otherwise would be discarded.

[Bee Eff]

Marriage isn't about "rights". It is a contract not just between the two individuals but also with society. The community affords the married couple recognition of certain rights. The married couple assumes some basic responsibilities. It is most distinctly a give and take. But, you probably agree with all that.

So, way back when you posted, "Is there a rational position for being against the practice of polygamy?", I read that question as, "By allowing polygamy, would our society be unaffected, harmed, or benefited?"

For my part, I'm not sure. If society were more righteous, I can see the allowance of the practice of polygamy as being quite beneficial. But, a wicked society could never pull it off. It would be ruinous.

I do not believe marriage is a contract with society.

Please elaborate on what rights you feel society has the right to bestow. I feel that the recognition is due to the married couple as a matter of fact, not as a gift given.