How do you deal with hard questions

[mercyngrace]

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

Lehi

So then - following the logic of your original statement:

Women Men must (in general) find polygyny homosexuality appealing because we see that there are so many who openly practice homosexualitymake themselves subordinate wives to men who they know are already married, although their status is "mistress" or "kept woman", or "harlot" or "whore". in spite of available options.

[LeSellers]

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.

Then you're saying that only one option exists. Fine, they make the best out of what is available to them. They prefer that to the alternatives, which includes, what?, death.

And, yes, I read a little. I have some knowledge of what goes on in the world.

Lehi

[zeezrom]

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.

You are right. She did not state in her published writing that she had sex with Smith. I'm not sure why she would do that. So you are telling me that since she was silent on that detail, it did not happen?

"She's 14! She doesn't know what to expect."

All the more reason this might seem like a mistake to a lot of people. Maybe it was wrong of Smith to pull it off.

[LeSellers]

So then - following the logic of your original statement:

When you have to cut out whole clauses and phrases, your "parallel" doesn't work.

And, as so many here have pointed out, homosexuality is not a "choice".

Lehi

[Mark Beesley]

No one has effectively rebutted my observations.

I have observed that most women who have pre-marital and extra-marital sex do it because they like sex, not because they want financial or emotional security, or children.

There, I've rebutted your observation.

Sheesh.

[Calm]

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.

And quite a bit of evidence that there wasn't in that she was allowed and had the expectation to attend dances/parties just as she did prior to the sealing (the only dances we know she was forbidden to attend were ones where "blacklegs" were present and where the young ladies who had attended were involved in the scandal associated with these men). IIRC, she was sealed in either May or June and was attending dances up until at least Christmastime. And again IIRC that only leaves until June for the situation to have changed and there is no indication in Helen's writing that any signficant happened in that time period in regards to her relationship with JS, again IIRC (it's been awhile since I researched this indepth).

[zeezrom]

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.

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".

On your first point. I see what you are saying but it can never be the same again once you realize you could have received the highest glory but now you can't and it is your fault.

She was coerced into a marriage that brought on additional fears. That is my point.

[ttribe]

You are right. She did not state in her published writing that she had sex with Smith. I'm not sure why she would do that. So you are telling me that since she was silent on that detail, it did not happen?

No. I am saying there is no EVIDENCE.

"She's 14! She doesn't know what to expect."

All the more reason this might seem like a mistake to a lot of people. Maybe it was wrong of Smith to pull it off.

Could be. I don't really know.

[mercyngrace]

When you have to cut out whole clauses and phrases, your "parallel" doesn't work.

And, as so many here have pointed out, homosexuality is not a "choice".

Lehi

Wow - women love to be hookers but men can't help that they prefer homosexuality.

What else is there to say?

[zeezrom]

No. I am saying there is no EVIDENCE.

no evidence either way. So what tipped you over the other side? I guess that is what I need to hear.

[ttribe]

no evidence either way. So what tipped you over the other side? I guess that is what I need to hear.

1 - the dearth of evidence is impactful. 2 - there are several of his sealings which are clearly dynastic. 3 - some of the subsequent actions of both of them (see cal's post above). That's what I can give you off the top of my head. It's been a while since I worried about HMK.

Edited to add - there's some decent information and links here - FAIR Link

[LeSellers]

I have observed that most women who have pre-marital and extra-marital sex do it because they like sex, not because they want financial or emotional security, or children.

There, I've rebutted your observation.

You have no way* of supporting your "observation", but there is a wealth of data to support mine.

* Short, that is, of admitting being there.

I have never claimed that women do not enjoy the act of sexual intercourse. But that is not why they enter long-term relationships.

Their values may be just as subjective as men's, but they are usually more interested in the prospect's prospects and his (probable) status. Or so I've seen in several studies. Informal relationships can be just as flip as men's. But whatever those criteria, the women choose the best option available to them at the time, and "best" is solely in the eye of the woman making the choice.

Lehi

[Calm]

On your first point. I see what you are saying but it can never be the same again once you realize you could have received the highest glory but now you can't and it is your fault.

Except she was never told she could not receive the highest glory in any other way, but rather this was one way she could receive it. If she refused, she and her family would still have had the opportunity to receive the highest glory in the way they originally expected to.

[alter idem]

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.

I don't remember anyone calling you "unkind things"; I think it's been a pretty respectful exchange.

Then you'd be wrong.

Wouldn't be the first time. I'm wrong quite often.

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.

You assume that women make they own decisions. Not all do. In this country, women have more freedom, but in many places in the world, they do not.

I'm not sure why you think this is 'elitism'.

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

And we would come up with a number of reasons for this, not just that all his wives wanted the most powerful, richest man in the valley. Not every women chose to marry him. Some did choose the John Does in the valley when they could have had a polygamist.

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.

And you would be wrong in your assumption. I didn't take the first or the second proposal. I said no because I did not feel they were the 'one'. Your perception of women seems narrow--you see them as only calculating--I think your narrow views interfere with your ability to grasp some of what I'm saying.

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.

And I have mentioned a number of times that in many countries women do not 'choose'. Their choices are limited--for many reasons.

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

I'm not sure polygamy is the 'norm' in the world. I'd have to see statistics. But if you are assuming that this is because women prefer it, that's silly. How do you know it is not because men prefer it?

[CV75]

I voted "Other". I'm okay with the concept historically and doctrinally, including how the keys are exercised in establishing or ending the practice as the Lord inspires His servants, and how well His servants are able to carry out His commands, and how well the saints adjust and follow (I cannot judge any of them). I think issues that we find problematic merit attention but not at the expense of drawing the wrong conclusion about things we already know to be true, or at the expense of not exploring the basic essentials with equal or greater intent (knowing that Jesus Christ lives and is the Atoning One; that His Church and the priesthood keys are restored; that they were restored through Joseph Smith; that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. While it doesn

[LeSellers]

You assume that women make they own decisions. Not all do. In this country, women have more freedom, but in many places in the world, they do not.

No, they don't in the macro sense, but they make decisions based on what is available to them.

I'm not sure why you think this is 'elitism'.

Because there are people, some here, who assume that their ideas and choices would be better for the women in question than the choices these women made for themselves. Remember, a choice is only a choice when the options being considered are, in fact, available.

And we would come up with a number of reasons for this, not just that all his wives wanted the most powerful, richest man in the valley. Not every women chose to marry him. Some did choose the John Does in the valley when they could have had a polygamist.

Yet many did. Do you have any ideas as to why they made the choices they did, rather than all 27 choosing a John Doe?

Yes, many did opt for Brother Doe, but many (and we must recognize that many, the majority) did choose a husband with other wives, or, and this is also germane, choose to allow their monogynous husband to marry another woman.

And you would be wrong in your assumption. I didn't take the first or the second proposal. I said no because I did not feel they were the 'one'. Your perception of women seems narrow--you see them as only calculating--I think your narrow views interfere with your ability to grasp some of what I'm saying.

Your respectful exchange seems to be getting a mite testy here.

My narrow views are, to my mind, more global than yours. The very fact that you made a choice, because he/they were not "the one" reflects that you applied a set of personal criteria to making the decision. But you insist that women (whose choices are admittedly limited) who make choices different from yours are not displaying a preference among the choices they do have. And there are always choices, even if one of them is death.

And I have mentioned a number of times that in many countries women do not 'choose'. Their choices are limited--for many reasons.

And I have acknowledged those limits. But "limited" does not require that there be none. And any choice, once made, is demonstrable evidence of a preference.

I'm not sure polygamy is the 'norm' in the world. I'd have to see statistics.

But, if you read my message again, you'll note that I did not claim polygyny was the norm, I said it was a norm.

But if you are assuming that this is because women prefer it, that's silly.

I am not assuming anything. What I am doing is observing that any act is evidence of a preference among the options available (pardon the redundancy, but it seems that this basic fact does not resonate with everyone). The primary question seems to be, not what they prefer in a particular situation, but what that situation ought to be. I submit that you and I have no influence on that.

So, once again, I re-iterate that the preference for polygyny is manifest in the acts of those women who choose it, especially if the alternatives are many, but even when they are not. Because, when someone makes a choice among several (or even only two) options, his act is irrefutable evidence that he's making a choice, based on only his personal values, knowledge, and the menu of choices he has.

How do you know it is not because men prefer it?

The men who have many wives do prefer it. Based on their actions, how could I believe anything else?

These men, however, make their choices based on slightly different values.

First, there is probably sex, but, in most cases, that's secondary to progeny. Mark Twain said that a man should have a fraction of a wife (i.e., polyandry) because a woman can handle several men serially, while a man is essentially incapacitated after coitus. Even a satyr has limited capacity, and, as far as I am concerned, one wife is enough to take care of a man's sexual needs.

Second, additional wives are a sign of status. But this status comes with its price. That price includes the high cost of maintaining more than and raising their children.

However, those men with no wives at all, the "nonogynists", would probably like things altered. The issue I have raised in preceding messages is that these men would be substandard: they would be poorer, less healthy, have lower status, be older, weaker, less able to protect her and their children, less able to support her and them. That's why women would, across the board, be better off with polygyny. The woman who has a fraction of a man who can support her and their children easily is better off with that fraction than with a whole man who cannot. (No not every woman would make that choice because that is not the personal value of every woman. But it is a rational choice for those who would.)

And, returning to the OP, let's not forget that the choices these women make, the fact that there are "informal" polygynies as well as formal polygynies, are evidence that people who have a problem with early LDS Plural Marriage are not basing their choice to be shocked (or whatever) on reasonable grounds.

Lehi

[zeezrom]

And, returning to the OP, let's not forget that the choices these women make, the fact that there are "informal" polygynies as well as formal polygynies, are evidence that people who have a problem with early LDS Plural Marriage are not basing their choice to be shocked (or whatever) on reasonable grounds.

Your "informal" polygynies <=> mormon polygamy idea might actually make the problem worse for many people.

[zeezrom]

I voted "Other". I'm okay with the concept historically and doctrinally, including how the keys are exercised in establishing or ending the practice as the Lord inspires His servants, and how well His servants are able to carry out His commands, and how well the saints adjust and follow (I cannot judge any of them). I think issues that we find problematic merit attention but not at the expense of drawing the wrong conclusion about things we already know to be true, or at the expense of not exploring the basic essentials with equal or greater intent (knowing that Jesus Christ lives and is the Atoning One; that His Church and the priesthood keys are restored; that they were restored through Joseph Smith; that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. While it doesn

[zeezrom]

Except she was never told she could not receive the highest glory in any other way, but rather this was one way she could receive it. If she refused, she and her family would still have had the opportunity to receive the highest glory in the way they originally expected to.

I don't know. I don't really see how Helen would know how to assure that glory for her and her family in another way. Wouldn't she be concerned about disappointing the Prophet of God? That would be like disappointing God Himself. She probably knew what happened to people that disappointed God from stories in the OT.

[zeezrom]

1 - the dearth of evidence is impactful. 2 - there are several of his sealings which are clearly dynastic. 3 - some of the subsequent actions of both of them (see cal's post above). That's what I can give you off the top of my head. It's been a while since I worried about HMK.

Edited to add - there's some decent information and links here - FAIR Link

The silence on the subject is the dearth of evidence. The fact that they were married and had the green light to have sex is still pretty good evidence. Joseph did have the green light, didn't he?

[LeSellers]

Your "informal" polygynies <=> mormon polygamy idea might actually make the problem worse for many people.

what, pray tell, is the symbol <=> supposed to be?

Because if it has anything at all to do with equation or derivation, you will please note that this is not, nor could it be, my thrust at all.

Lehi

[zeezrom]

what, pray tell, is the symbol <=> supposed to be?

Because if it has anything at all to do with equation or derivation, you will please note that this is not, nor could it be, my thrust at all.

Lehi

OK. From your last post, it appeared you were saying mormon polygamy would not be a problem for people who could put it within the context of informal "polygynies". So what are you saying. I'm having a hard time understanding what you are getting at.

[LeSellers]

From your last post, it appeared you were saying mormon polygamy would not be a problem for people who could put it within the context of informal "polygynies". So what are you saying. I'm having a hard time understanding what you are getting at.

I'm saying, as I have said many times in this topic, that polygyny is not aberrant behavior, it is quite common. That because it is, people who practice it are not evil, per se (they may be evil, but it is not polygyny that makes them so).

People who have a problem with early LDS polygyny are projecting their modern sensitivities onto people whose milieu did not condemn the practice. People who feel that Joseph (or Brigham or any of the others) was wrong, that he was only interested in sex, are simply seeing what they want to see, that they are missing the point that polygyny is not wrong because it's polygyny, its only wrong, today, because God has repealed the law that required them to practice it in the first place.

Early LDS polygyny was not odd, it merely ran in the face of the hypocrisy of its time. (You do not think that the people who condemned them from their benches and podia had renounced their informal wives, do you? Because we have a colorful example of Justice William W. Drummond who railed against LDS polygyny (calling it immoral, of course), while he had abandoned his wife and family in the east and kept company with a prostitute whom he had brought from Washington.

Furthermore, there were a host of men in the XIX who had multiple formal wives but who had no connection at all with the LDS Church. It was, you will recall, a federal law that made it illegal in the Territories. And, while many states had anti-bigamy laws, not all did. It was not seen as a state issue.

We could go into a long history of polygyny, about how it was the Romans who created it. We could evaluate their logic about how it was the only way to assure dynastic lines and preserve inheritances, rather than anything to do with morality, etc. We could see how the Catholic Church promoted monogyny, and how Martin Luther suggested that Henry VIII just take an additional wife to assure a male heir.

Monogyny is not the same kind of moral issue as, say, abortion. No one gets hurt who has not agreed to the situation (except in informal arrangements with an ignorant wife, a situation that would not happen often if it were legal).

All that said, one issue remains: who is the real beneficiary of polygyny? Without any doubt, it is women in general, and particularly those women who would, under strict monogyny, be unwillingly unmarried. and who suffers the most? Those men who, under monogyny, are now able to marry women who would, under polygyny, choose a different husband, one who was more desirable for whatever reason.

Lehi

[Tarski]

1) I accept is as a mistake most likely originating with Joseph Smith's weakness for women.

2) Then I simply add it to my long list of reasons that I do not believe in the church anymore.

3) Then I live and be happy.

[zeezrom]

Mr. Lehi,

Sorry to make you repeat what you said before. It was nice to see it all summarized like that. Now I understand what you are saying. Thank you for your time.

You might find it interesting how these people found polygyny useful: A study of polygamy in Russia.

Zee