How do you deal with hard questions

[ttribe]

Perhaps. So what? He who takes offense when none is intended is a fool. He who takes offense when offense is intended is still a fool.

Your constant use of that phrase is nothing more than a cowardly cop out and abdication of your personal responsibility to behave like a reasonable human being to your fellow man.

No one has effectively rebutted my observations.

Your observations are based on anecdotal evidence and a likely minority of society. You cite "millions" who allegedly engage in said behavior, you provide no concrete evidence, and you ignore the billions who have never, and will never, engage in such a behavior.

And why should I be concerned about offending people anyway? Those who choose to be offended won't care about the facts, and those who listen will consider them in their own minds, which is my goal.

Arrogance. Plain and simple.

[ttribe]

And, for the 905^th time, please

[Deborah]

I am rather surprised that so many find offense at Lehi's statement: "Women must (in general) find polygyny appealing because we see that there are so many who make themselves subordinate wives to men who they know are already married, although their status is "mistress" or "kept woman", or "harlot" or "whore"."

I don't take offense at the statement at all, I suppose because I've seen too much of it illustrated with women I've known personally. It is a statement of what women are willing to do to get the man they want. Women have always appreciated a powerful wealthy man, even if they have to share him (ie, the woman who is willing to be the mistress). I don't think the intent was to compare Mormon plural marriage with any of those situation but to point out a fact that many women are willing to share a man even if they can't be married to him. It is amusing that they are willing to do this but heaven forbid they be married to a man who is already married.

As to the poll I answered the one where I accept the historical concept.

As to the general question, of how I deal with hard questions, assuming in reference to spiritual matters, I have learned to table questions I can't find ready answers for and to rely on the spiritual experiences I've already had to sustain me until the answers to the hard questions come (sometimes not for years). I find it rather like cutting off your nose to spite your face to throw out what you already know because something comes along to throw you for a loop.

[LeSellers]

Then change your username. It is common practice on message boards to call people by their usernames.

Someone who hasn't been here in five or six years has "Lehi" tied up. I'd bet it isn't his real name.

But why is it so hard to type four letters (rather than nine)? It's not as if I make it a secret.

(I sign every message, do I not? Like this:)

Lehi

[ttribe]

I am rather surprised that so many find offense at Lehi's statement: "Women must (in general) find polygyny appealing because we see that there are so many who make themselves subordinate wives to men who they know are already married, although their status is "mistress" or "kept woman", or "harlot" or "whore"."

I don't take offense at the statement at all, I suppose because I've seen too much of it illustrated with women I've known personally. It is a statement of what women are willing to do to get the man they want. Women have always appreciated a powerful wealthy man, even if they have to share him (ie, the woman who is willing to be the mistress). I don't think the intent was to compare Mormon plural marriage with any of those situation but to point out a fact that many women are willing to share a man even if they can't be married to him. It is amusing that they are willing to do this but heaven forbid they be married to a man who is already married.

Many or a a majority of women Deborah? Re-read what Lehi said and pay close attention to his use and placement of the phrase "in general".

[Senator]

I don't take offense at the statement at all, I suppose because I've seen too much of it illustrated with women I've known personally.

I'm rather surprised at such a statement. Out of the hundreds of women I've come in contact with in my life, I can think of two, that I know of, that have acted out and "shared" a man. Even then the intent was not to share him, but eventually obtain exclusivity of him. Neither of the men were rich, nor famous, or powerful.

[Deborah]

Many or a a majority of women Deborah? Re-read what Lehi said and pay close attention to his use and placement of the phrase "in general".

I think the term "in general" speaks for itself. Women in multiple societies throughout history have wanted the strongest, most successful man, whether it was the best hunter of the tribe or the great businessman. I've seen women do some crazy things for a man. That doesn't mean that all women are like this. But I think the interesting point is how women will carry out these affairs but wouldn't want to be married to a man who was already married unless he divorced his current wife.

I myself have no problems with plural marriage and haven't since college days. We don't live it now and I have no problem with that. I think the Lord gives commandments for the times and the people and I really can't see it being practiced today with the moral climate the way it is.

[ttribe]

I think the term "in general" speaks for itself. Women in multiple societies throughout history have wanted the strongest, most successful man, whether it was the best hunter of the tribe or the great businessman. I've seen women do some crazy things for a man. That doesn't mean that all women are like this. But I think the interesting point is how women will carry out these affairs but wouldn't want to be married to a man who was already married unless he divorced his current wife.

I myself have no problems with plural marriage and haven't since college days. We don't live it now and I have no problem with that. I think the Lord gives commandments for the times and the people and I really can't see it being practiced today with the moral climate the way it is.

Do you really agree with this - "Women must (in general) find polygyny appealing..."?

[LeSellers]

Many or a a majority of women Deborah? Re-read what Lehi said and pay close attention to his use and placement of the phrase "in general".

And you might do well to understand that "in general" just might mean more than XXI USmerican women.

That I used XXI USmerican women as examples in no way requires that my original intent was so limited.

Africa, South America, Asia, the vast majority of the Islamic world, and sizable portions of the West all include women who accept or prefer polygyny to monogyny (which would mean "nonogyny" or "subandry" for many of them).

Lehi

Lehi

[ttribe]

Someone who hasn't been here in five or six years has "Lehi" tied up. I'd bet it isn't his real name.

But why is it so hard to type four letters (rather than nine)? It's not as if I make it a secret.

(I sign every message, do I not? Like this:)

Lehi

"LehiL" seems to be available.

BTW, your post is further evidence that you seem to have an extremely "Lehi-centric" view of the world. All should conform to your expectations and Lehi should do nothing to conform to the conventional practice.

[mercyngrace]

No one has effectively rebutted my observations.

Don't know that you'll consider this effective or even a rebuttal, but I'll offer my observations as one who has worked with certain demographics in which the phenomena you describe is increasingly prevalent.

I would argue that many women enter into the types of relationships you referenced not because they are desirable but precisely because they believe the possibility for desirable relationships is unavailable.

Consider:

- the young woman who has low self-esteem and stays with a philanderer as a validation of her worth

- the woman who believes she is financially trapped in a relationship with a man who cheats

- the woman who has children and feels that a bad/part-time father is better than no father

- the woman who believes the only way she can support herself is through prostitution or some other degrading practice

- the woman who has been abused and has low expectations of men generally and settles for sharing a partner

I could go on and on describing the reasons women settle but the most compelling evidence against your hypothesis that women desire to share a man is the fact that in certain demographics the practice of "sharing" has increased in proportion to the availability of suitable partners. To put it simply and using Isaiah's math, when 6 men don't live up to their responsibility to marry, replenish, and multiply - 1 man is liable to get 7 times the action.

[ttribe]

And you might do well to understand that "in general" just might mean more than XXI USmerican women.

That I used XXI USmerican women as examples in no way requires that my original intent was so limited.

Africa, South America, Asia, the vast majority of the Islamic world, and sizable portions of the West all include women who accept or prefer polygyny to monogyny (which would mean "nonogyny" for many of them).

Lehi

You have absolutely no idea whether some of all of those women accept or prefer such an arrangement. You have only the evidence that they live in it.

[Deborah]

I can think of two, that I know of, that have acted out and "shared" a man. Even then the intent was not to share him, but eventually obtain exclusivity of him. Neither of the men were rich, nor famous, or powerful.

I've known more than two. But your statement about obtaining exclusivity is more telling. So it's better to break up a marriage, and likely a family, than it is to be married to a man who is already married?

[mercyngrace]

You have absolutely no idea whether some of all of those women accept or prefer such an arrangement. You have only the evidence that they live in it.

Well, that completely summed up my post

It's like saying "Lots of people love being abused by alcoholics. Just look at how many continue to be abused every day..."

[Deborah]

I would argue that many women enter into the types of relationships you referenced not because they are desirable but precisely because they believe the possibility for desirable relationships is unavailable.

I agree this is probably a more accurate statement.

[zeezrom]

It is amusing that they are willing to do this but heaven forbid they be married to a man who is already married.

I don't think the people questioning polygamy are necessarily the ones who are willing to participate in or consider fornication/adultery acceptable.

I find it rather like cutting off your nose to spite your face to throw out what you already know because something comes along to throw you for a loop.

Nobody has suggested throwing out what they know. Some people simply question this particular practice or struggle with a particular hard question.

[Senator]

Africa, South America, Asia, the vast majority of the Islamic world, and sizable portions of the West all include women who accept or prefer polygyny to monogyny (which would mean "nonogyny" or "subandry" for many of them).

That polygamy exists in the world, however far reaching, is no indication that women do accept it, let alone prefer it.

**ttribe beat me to it**

[LeSellers]

"LehiL" seems to be available.

But that's not my name, is it?

your post is further evidence that you seem to have an extremely "Lehi-centric" view of the world. All should conform to your expectations and Lehi should do nothing to conform to the conventional practice.

Non-conformance is the norm hereabouts, isn't it?

How many people do not use the convention of using the "quote" feature?

How many people tend to use the flying apostrophe (or not use ones that are required)?

Except for parody (as when I refer to cynipro ad cynicpro), the use of a person's preferred name is considered polite, which is, itself a convention.

I'd avoid, Mr. Pot, calling the Kettle "black".

Lehi

[LeSellers]

It's like saying "Lots of people love being abused by alcoholics. Just look at how many continue to be abused every day..."

Yet, in their own minds, they view this as being preferable to anything else that's actually available to them. They are making a choice between what they hate and what they hate even more.

The fact that other choices may be out there does not change the fact that, in their minds, this is the best thing they can do.

Lehi

[ttribe]

But that's not my name, is it?

I don't know. Is it?

Non-conformance is the norm hereabouts, isn't it?

How many people do not use the convention of using the "quote" feature?

How many people tend to use the flying apostrophe (or not use ones that are required)?

Except for parody (as when I refer to cynipro ad cynicpro), the use of a person's preferred name is considered polite, which is, itself a convention.

Can you provide examples of people engaging in such behaviors and then complaining at every person who doesn't follow their pattern, like you do?

I'd avoid, Mr. Pot, calling the Kettle "black".

For that phrase to make any sense in its direction at me you'd need to find some examples of me acting like you. Please feel free to find such examples.

[Deborah]

That polygamy exists in the world, however far reaching, is no indication that women do accept it, let alone prefer it.

They probably don't necessarily prefer it (except in the situations mng outlined) but they obviously accept it or they wouldn't have done it.

[ttribe]

They probably don't necessarily prefer it (except in the situations mng outlined) but they obviously accept it they wouldn't have done it.

Hmmm...you think African slaves "accepted" their lot for hundreds of years, or "submitted" out of fear, etc? And, yes, I know who I am talking to when I ask that question.

[Deborah]

Hmmm...you think African slaves "accepted" their lot for hundreds of years, or "submitted" out of fear, etc? And, yes, I know who I am talking to when I ask that question.

I don't see that as the same situation at all. And yes there are circumstances in certain societies where the women accepted the situation out of fear, but not in all circumstances.

[ttribe]

I don't see that as the same situation at all. And yes there are circumstances in certain societies where the women accepted the situation out of fear, but not in all circumstances.

No one said "all"; however, there is no doubt that there is an inverse relationship between the freedom of societies and the formal practice of polygamy.

[alter idem]

Perhaps. So what? He who takes offense when none is intended is a fool. He who takes offense when offense is intended is still a fool.

This is a trite phrase and used as an excuse to be rude to others.

You did not offend me directly, I said your remarks were offensive to women. From your comments, I conclude you have a very low opinion of women in general. If you disagree, I'm sorry, but that is how I perceive you.

No one has effectively rebutted my observations.

The moral problems of today have nothing to do with the practice of polygamy in the early days of the church. Your general belief that women will mate with anyone they think is rich or powerful and have no qualms about sharing a man with other women has nothing to do with the practice of polygamy by early church members. Your belief that women today chose to have extramarital sex with multiple partners and so wouldn't mind living polygamy has nothing to do with the practice of polygamy by early church members.

Then you are saying that early LDS polygyny was sinful?

No, why would you even think that? I said nothing to suggest such a response.

To arbitrarily assume they are not is equally shortsighted.

Nonetheless, when there is a huge trend toward one target, one must assume that there is a reason for it. I cannot accept that so many women would do things that do not advance their personal well-being, or, worse, make them, in their own minds, worse off.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to show the way?

CFR that I "equated" anything.

Please see your first post on this thread.

And why should I be concerned about offending people anyway? Those who choose to be offended won't care about the facts, and those who listen will consider them in their own minds, which is my goal.

Lehi

Clearly you don't care if you offend and that was not my reason for commenting.

I explained that I believe your bringing up modern promiscuous and predatory practices by women on a thread discussing LDS polygamy (as well as your broad generalizations) was inappropriate. I do not believe the two topics have any bearing on each other.