How do you deal with hard questions

[zeezrom]

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.

Everyone says Helen M. Kimball made a choice but evidence shows fear. You are a 14-yr old girl in the 19th century. You are told by the man you revere as the prophet of the Lord that if you marry him you will be saved and so will your parents, whom you hold great respect. Your dad tells you to stay quiet about it and only talk to he and mom.

Would you feel any fear at all? Any?

[LeSellers]

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.

So, in essence, you agree with me.

Yes, we outside their worlds may see alternatives. The fact is, they do not. They make the best choices they can in their situations.

Those choices make them better off, in their own minds, than anything else they believe to be an option.

Thus, they prefer their choices. You may disagree, but that's their world.

Consider:

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

If he validates her, and she believes herself unworthy of anything more, has she not made a rational choice, based on something she sees as being worth the exchange of her life/body/time to obtain?

Who are we to assume she is irrational?

You may disagree with her values, but her choice is rational.

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

And she, too, has decided that her financial life is more important than his fidelity.

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

Which is true in more cases than most people imagine.

However, this is still a choice, one she made based on her preferences and whatever information she has available.

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

Another choice, based on her preferences and knowledge. Her knowledge may be faulty, but you cannot dispute her choice unless you are willing to call her insane.

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

Another choice. So far you have not shown a single instance where she is not better off, in her own mind, than if she'd chosen another option. Because she is better off, she preferred the alternative she took to all others available at the time.

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.

Once again, you're supporting my position: women make their choices, including informal polygyny, to anything else they could have selected because it's the best option, in their minds. They prefer it to all others.

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.

But, whatever else one may feel about it, the situation is what it is, and all the whining and moaning we can muster will not change it.

Women (in general) prefer polygyny to nonogyny and subandry. If they did not, we would not see the very cases you present.

And, as I said earlier, I am not limiting the population to XXI USmerican women.

Lehi

[ttribe]

Everyone says Helen M. Kimball made a choice but evidence shows fear. You are a 14-yr old girl in the 19th century. You are told by the man you revere as the prophet of the Lord that if you marry him you will be saved and so will your parents, whom you hold great respect. Your dad tells you to stay quiet about it and only talk to he and mom.

Would you feel any fear at all? Any?

Frankly, I believe this situation is dynastic and really not all that comparable. But, that's a fight for a different day.

[LeSellers]

Everyone says Helen M. Kimball made a choice but evidence shows fear. You are a 14-yr old girl in the 19th century. You are told by the man you revere as the prophet of the Lord that if you marry him you will be saved and so will your parents, whom you hold great respect. Your dad tells you to stay quiet about it and only talk to he and mom.

Would you feel any fear at all? Any?

Are you implying that she did not make a choice? One that, in her mind, was not the best choice available to her?

You are judging her choice by a faulty standard: that of chronocentrism. It's fallacy, nothing more.

Lehi

[alter idem]

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

Women in most countries which allow polygamy have no rights to 'prefer' or even 'accept' their lot in life. Are you not aware of their lack of status or even their inability to control what kind of future they have? It is naive to assume they 'like' it. Most women in these countries have little choice in the matter.

[alter idem]

"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.

I'm sorry, Lehi, but I really have to agree with ttribe and PRESS this issue. I've been on the board long enough and have made the honest mistake of calling you "LeSellers" (because that IS your name) and been reprimanded for it. If you wish to be called "Lehi", why don't you take "LehiL"? It's simple enough to change, just contact the mods and then poor unsuspecting newbies and others who haven't had as much interaction with you will not be irritating you by calling you by a name you do not wish to be referred to.

I'm not trying to annoy you, I'm asking you to help lessen some of your frustration with the rest of us who forget or are not aware of your preference.

Thanks;)

edited typo

[zeezrom]

Frankly, I believe this situation is dynastic and really not all that comparable. But, that's a fight for a different day.

why a different day? We are talking about fear being a driver. Did any other Mormon leader in our history marry for dynastic reasons alone? I'm not picking a bone, I'm really wondering because I would like to know about it.

[zeezrom]

Are you implying that she did not make a choice? One that, in her mind, was not the best choice available to her?

You are judging her choice by a faulty standard: that of chronocentrism. It's fallacy, nothing more.

Lehi

I'm saying fear was a driver. That is all I'm saying. On the one side you have Smith - a man of great power. On the other side you have a girl who is powerless. Fear was involved. Fear has been around forever not just the 21st century - how is that a faulty standard?

[ttribe]

why a different day? We are talking about fear being a driver. Did any other Mormon leader in our history marry for dynastic reasons alone? I'm not picking a bone, I'm really wondering because I would like to know about it.

There were many dynastic sealings performed in the Nauvoo days of the Church, and even for some time thereafter. Ultimately, this morphed into the colloquially titled "Law of Adoption". IMO, the sealing of JS to Helen Mar Kimball appears to follow that pattern - an effort to join two families together in the hereafter. There is no evidence of any otherwise illicit behavior between JS and HMK.

[alter idem]

But, whatever else one may feel about it, the situation is what it is, and all the whining and moaning we can muster will not change it.

Women (in general) prefer polygyny to nonogyny and subandry. If they did not, we would not see the very cases you present.

And, as I said earlier, I am not limiting the population to XXI USmerican women.

Lehi

Call for Reference that Women (in general) prefer polygyny to nongyny and subandry.

And before you try to cite numbers, just because they live it, does not mean they 'prefer' it. That is what I am requiring that you defend within your statement-that women PREFER it.

[zeezrom]

There were many dynastic sealings performed in the Nauvoo days of the Church, and even for some time thereafter. Ultimately, this morphed into the colloquially titled "Law of Adoption". IMO, the sealing of JS to Helen Mar Kimball appears to follow that pattern - an effort to join two families together in the hereafter. There is no evidence of any otherwise illicit behavior between JS and HMK.

illicit? Would it be illicit if they had sex? Once they are married under the new and everlasting covenant, they have the green light to consummate the marriage.

[ttribe]

illicit? Would it be illicit if they had sex? Once they are married under the new and everlasting covenant, they have the green light to consummate the marriage.

I believe you know what I mean. Clearly there is a stigma, as we look back at the situation, of a late 30's man marrying a 14 year old girl. It is my belief that there never was such a consummation in this case.

[LeSellers]

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

It's not an excuse. It's true.

In this exchange, I have been called a wide range of unkind things. I choose not to be offended. And I am not.

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.

Then you'd be wrong.

I respect women enough to accept their decisions. Some people want to impose their choices on them based on an assumed superior knowledge of what is best for them. This elitism stinks to high heaven.

If you disagree, I'm sorry, but that is how I perceive you.

Your perception is your own business, and you are entitled to it.

I believe it unjustifiable, but you can make any choice you like.

The moral problems of today have nothing to do with the practice of polygamy in the early days of the church.

I didn't ever say they did.

I merely raised them to show that the practice of Plural Marriage is not and was not aberrant, merely beyond the overt norms of the day (irrespective of which day that might be).

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.

I disagree. We might think about discussing why Brigham Young had 27 or more wives, but John Doe had only one.

But that has nothing to do with this topic.

I assume that you took the first marriage proposal offered? Because, if you did not, that would mean that you figured there might be a better guy out there for you; that this suitor was not suitable for you. Maybe it was his looks, it could have been his prospects, or his ill health (which you wouldn't want your children to inherit). Whatever it was, your reasoning was valid, and I respect it.

What I cannot respect is a cavalier denial of the choices other women make as to their mates. Because they chose based on the same sorts of criteria as you did, but theirs just happened not to include "single". And, whether any of us believes their choices to be the best of all possible options, they did choose the best one for them, at that time, in their circumstances.

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.

And I did not say it did or does.

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

I'd go back and read your response again then, because that's what I got out of it, or at least, that's where your statement leads.

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.

Obviously, I do.

But not as many, including you, have leaped to assume.

And I did not "equate" the two things. As I have explained several times now, my intent was to show that those who have a problem with early LDS Plural Marriage have no reasonable justification for their angst. Polygyny is a norm around the world and has been since time immemorial. Only the hyper-chronocentric would worry about it.

Lehi

[ttribe]

It's not an excuse. It's true.

I guess you've said it so many times that you actually believe it.

[Calm]

Everyone says Helen M. Kimball made a choice but evidence shows fear. You are a 14-yr old girl in the 19th century. You are told by the man you revere as the prophet of the Lord that if you marry him you will be saved and so will your parents, whom you hold great respect.

Why would this cause fear? She is being told something good will happen if she does something, not something bad will happen if she doesn't

Your dad tells you to stay quiet about it and only talk to he and mom.

Would you feel any fear at all? Any?

Wouldn't the second cause of fear you suggest be more likely to cause her not to choose to accept the marriage, the opposite of what you are suggesting?

[zeezrom]

I believe you know what I mean. Clearly there is a stigma, as we look back at the situation, of a late 30's man marrying a 14 year old girl. It is my belief that there never was such a consummation in this case.

It is your belief. It is my hope. But my hope fails when I see her words,

None but God & his angels could see my mother

[LeSellers]

before you try to cite numbers, just because they live it, does not mean they 'prefer' it. That is what I am requiring that you defend within your statement-that women PREFER it.

If the live it, they must prefer it. Otherwise, they'd choose another option if it existed.

And that includes nonogyny (not being a wife) and subandry (having a less-than-optimal husband). Because both of those choices are, with rare exception, available to any woman.

Preference is not between a bad choice and an unavailable dream. It is between two (or more) things she could actually have. I'd prefer to be fabulously wealthy, to have an Olympian's body and prowess, and a photographic memory. None is actually an option for me, so I have a fairly slender body (which I chose over the obese one I had six months ago) and am merely debt-free. I forgot the other thing I have.

Lehi

[zeezrom]

Why would this cause fear? She is being told something good will happen if she does something, not something bad will happen if she doesn'tWouldn't the second cause of fear you suggest be more likely to cause her not to choose to accept the marriage, the opposite of what you are suggesting?

Helen is told she and her parents will receive salvation if she goes through with it. What if she didn't? What then? Salvation?

And what about these words?

If you should be tempted, or having feelings in your heart, tell them to no one but your father and mother; if you do, you will be betrayed and exposed

Would those words instill any fear? What does Heber mean "betrayed and exposed"?

[ttribe]

It is your belief. It is my hope. But my hope fails when I see her words,

So this was just a handshake? Why would they even do that? Why didn't she say, "it's okay, it was just dynastic anyway." ?

She's 14! She doesn't know what to expect. She doesn't know how this changes her life. There is zero evidence in there of a physical relationship.

[mercyngrace]

But, whatever else one may feel about it, the situation is what it is, and all the whining and moaning we can muster will not change it.

Lehi

Lehi,

Firstly, I'm not sure who you are addressing here but I have yet to whine or moan about anything in this conversation. I responded respectfully to your post. Respond in kind or don't bother.

Secondly, on the first page of this thread you said:

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".

Nothing that I posted suggested that women weren't making their own choices, or running a cost-benefit based on their own perceptions and circumstances. But it a nonsequitor that because women choose these kinds of relationships because they find them "appealing". They may simply find it less unappealing than being alone, impoverished, or single parenting.

[zeezrom]

If they live it, they must prefer it.

I don't think so.

[Calm]

Helen is told she and her parents will receive salvation if she goes through with it. What if she didn't? What then? Salvation?

Then the situation would be identical to what it was prior to the offer, there is no suggestion that I remember that says HMK or her family will suffer if she doesn't do it.

Would those words instill any fear? What does Heber mean "betrayed and exposed"?

Yes, they would instill fear but not to follow through with the marriage but to avoid it so that she wouldn't be at risk for being "betrayed and exposed".

[alter idem]

If the live it, they must prefer it. Otherwise, they'd choose another option if it existed.

And that includes nonogyny (not being a wife) and subandry (having a less-than-optimal husband). Because both of those choices are, with rare exception, available to any woman.

Preference is not between a bad choice and an unavailable dream. It is between two (or more) things she could actually have. I'd prefer to be fabulously wealthy, to have an Olympian's body and prowess, and a photographic memory. None is actually an option for me, so I have a fairly slender body (which I chose over the obese one I had six months ago) and am merely debt-free. I forgot the other thing I have.

Lehi

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.

You are ignoring the fact that in most countries throughout the world women and daughters do not have options or choices. They are subject to their fathers or their husbands; Men determine their fate.

[LeSellers]

I don't think so.

Then what, prithee, do they prefer, and how would we know it?

Lehi

[ttribe]

Then what, prithee, do they prefer, and how would we know it?

Lehi

Post Link