Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Polygamy as a woman


Del March

Recommended Posts

I think God wants us to grow, learn, develop and eventually be *independent* of his will. I would want the same thing for my kids. I don't believe God wants to create God clones. I think he created us all differently so that in the end we populate this life and the next with our diversity - not our robotic obedience. As such - I cannot see God wanting us to give up that which our heart tells us is good and true, just because someone else says it is not so.

Again, we see a difference in core theology brings about a difference in practice. Mormons place great priority on having the mind of Christ, and thinking as God thinks, not having their own wills and thoughts.

WJW

Link to comment
t2t2 said:
The only place on Earth you find a sizable portion of women who think this is fine and dandy is within the ranks of the LDS church.

Are you familiar with Islam? Did you know that in Islamic countries polygamy is legal? And that in these countries there are women in sizable numbers who are "fine and dandy" with it? And that the number of women in Islam substantially dwarfs the number of LDS women? Do you honestly believe what you said, or was your statement just some frustrated venting?

Or New Age Pagans. I have known many of them. Many are polygamous with the women acting as High-Priestesses in their covens, and men worship the Goddess under the matriarchal system. Interestingly, they are usually liberal feminists. So polygamy attracts all types.

WJW

Link to comment
Mormons can't believe a man can truly and passionately love another man and have God smile on it.

Same-sex relationships? Again, we see the same core doctrines in effect. 2 men = 0 babies.

You can believe as you desire, I am just pointing out that it is not really the practice that is the issue---it is the core doctrines behind them. So it seems silly to me to argue about gay marriage or polygamy, when the real issue is whether God lives, spirit children need to come to earth, and we need to be fulfilling our part to help them in the process.

WJW

Link to comment
If you were to poll 10,000 non-lds women in this country
Like I said, "think outside the box". Since when are only the opiniions of women in this country (I'm assuming you mean the US) the ones that matter?
Link to comment
Mormons can't believe a man can truly and passionately love another man and have God smile on it.
I'm not the one who's brought up whether or not God has to smile on a relationship for it to be true passion and love.

And I know many LDS who do believe that a man can truly and passionately love another.

I find it interesting that you think that love can adjust enough to include men loving men in the equivalent relationship you have with your wife, but not multiple partners. You want to impose the limits in your experience on others' relationships.

Link to comment

Like I said, "think outside the box". Since when are only the opiniions of women in this country (I'm assuming you mean the US) the ones that matter?

You're avoiding the question. Let's open it up. In all countries where women's rights are progressed enough to consider their opinions free from duress - say anywhere they have the right to vote, etc. - what percentage do you think would give a "boy howdy" thumbs up to polygamy?

-------------

I'm not the one who's brought up whether or not God has to smile on a relationship for it to be true passion and love.

If you believe that the main purpose for marriage is to breed, which is pretty narrow, how do you suppose I would think otherwise about your beliefs?

And I know many LDS who do believe that a man can truly and passionately love another.

I don't. Interesting. So if love comes from God...how can a man love another in this way without His stamp o' approval?

I find it interesting that you think that love can adjust enough to include men loving men in the equivalent relationship you have with your wife, but not multiple partners. You want to impose the limits in your experience on others' relationships.

Heh...obviously not. Did you think I'm gay or had somehow experienced this? Um - no. I've known a polygamous couple. Yep. I've known LOTS of Mormons who came from polygamous stock. I've seen the modern examples on Dateline. I've known gay couples, both men and women. I've known polyamorous couples - which is really the same thing as poygamy, just without the name. My personal experience is only with 1 woman at a time.

I guess that can be made to seem that I am limited. Then again...I've never tried crack and I know it's bad for you. Maybe I should think outside the box.....?

Link to comment

As I said, a rejection of polygamy boils down to certain other core doctrines. You reject those core doctrines and thus it is no surprise you reject polygamy.

........and .............Mormons place great priority on having the mind of Christ, and thinking as God thinks, not having their own wills and thoughts.

Absolutely. I agree. We have wide divides there and here and elsewhere.

Are you familiar with Islam? Did you know that in Islamic countries polygamy is legal? And that in these countries there are women in sizable numbers who are "fine and dandy" with it? And that the number of women in Islam substantially dwarfs the number of LDS women? Do you honestly believe what you said, or was your statement just some frustrated venting?

As Islamic countries progress this will diminish. Did you know that at one point many, many women thought voting best left up to the man? That in the early days of women suffrage one of the biggest obstacles to overcome wasn't opposition from men...but women? What do we think about those women today? Smart? Naive? Brainwashed? Or were they just a product of all that they had been taught and told was right and correct?

This is why I, in my infinite elitism, suppposed that a poll among westernized states a better judge of what liberated women would think about polygamy. Sure, many in Arab nations would say it's just fine. But I bet many would also answer "yes" to "Do you think it's OK for a husband to beat a disagreeable wife?" - since there are provisions for that in the Koran as well.

I'm talking about women who have grown up with the understanding that they are just as good, smart, capable as men. What would these women say? What do you think?

Link to comment

Sorry I've been away from this very interesting discussion. I was stuck in real life <_<

There are too many remarks I'd wish to answer to, so I'll just give a general comment.

First about my background. I'm French, raised by a single mother, in an environment NOT at all supportive of fancy ideas like polygamy. I was a real tomboy as a kid, and I grew up in a rather feminist atmosphere, utterly convinced that girls are *at least* as capable as boys. I had a HARD time with most of the doctrines of the church relating to women. I woud get angry whenever anyone mentioned that a "good" wife stayed home and raised kids. I was deeply involved in my studies, and what I wanted more than anything else was a good and fulfilling job. I viewed a husband as a nice adjonction, and children as complete hindrances !

Those views changed *very* gradually, as I prayed and pondered the scriptures and the words of the Prophets. I never forced myself to believe anything (I couldn't, even if I wanted to : I can't lie to myself, quite annoying at times). I just let myself be guided by the Holy Ghost. A time came when I actually desired to get married and have children, so I actively prepared myself for those blessings. But some issues were still out of the question, and polygamy was on the top of the list.

I met my future husband quite late, at the age of 28. We lived 1200 kms apart, in 2 different countries, and so we rarely got to meet each other. But when we did, we were glued to each other (so much so that some people thought we were already married when we weren't even engaged ! Not that we ever did anything "bad", though ) We married after a little more than a year, and he came to live with me. We were passionate about each other, so much so that I got pregnant in less than 2 months :P We're still quite passionate, but life has taught us to keep those feelings in reasonable check : we had to get separated for 4 months, with only one week-end together in the middle. It didn't draw us apart, but it sure reminded us that physical closeness of any kind is NOT what love and marriage should depend upon !

We also learned that sharing the other is *inevitable* and GOOD. I had to share my husband with his callings (that could take up much of his week-ends. which were the only time we could have together when I was still working) and his job (night job). He had to share me with our baby, my mother and my sister, my job, my callings, and my household duties. Sharing is a part of marriage !! And it teaches us a lot of good things.

So would it bother me to share him physically with another woman ? Well, I can't say for sure of course, but I don't think so if things were done the right way. I would mind if he spent all his nights with the other women and never with me, but this is not the righteous way. Would I mind sleeping alone while he's having fun with someone else, or staying home while he's dating another ? Answer is : no. Because I *love* BOTH him and myself. I DO NOT depend on his love to be happy. I'm happiER because he loves me, but I do not depend on him loving me to be happy. Furthermore, I don't need him to demonstrate his love to me *continually* for me to feel secure in his love. I KNOW he loves me, and as long as he reminds me of it every once in a while, I'm content. So I wouldn't take his loving another woman as a *threat* to me. Quite the opposite actually : it's because he loved other women before that he knows why he loves me and why I make him so happy. He knows what's special about me that he craves and needs and loves. And I feel confident enough to know that no other woman is exactly like me, so no other woman could give him what he needs from me. On the other hand, there are things he could enjoy that I just can't give him because I don't have them in me, or not developed enough. So if another woman could give him that, I would be happy for him.

Another thing : I TRUST my husband. I trust that he would still be a wonderful husband to me, even if he had other wives to take care of. In fact, *he* is the one who doesn't trust himself to be able to make several women happy at the same time :unsure:

In conclusion : IMO, love is not possession or exclusivity. Love is giving and sharing and trusting. Especially marital love, which is supposed to be the one closest to charity.

Del

Link to comment
So would it bother me to share him physically with another woman ? Well, I can't say for sure of course, but I don't think so if things were done the right way. I would mind if he spent all his nights with the other women and never with me, but this is not the righteous way. Would I mind sleeping alone while he's having fun with someone else, or staying home while he's dating another ? Answer is : no. Because I *love* BOTH him and myself. I DO NOT depend on his love to be happy. I'm happiER because he loves me, but I do not depend on him loving me to be happy. Furthermore, I don't need him to demonstrate his love to me *continually* for me to feel secure in his love. I KNOW he loves me, and as long as he reminds me of it every once in a while, I'm content. So I wouldn't take his loving another woman as a *threat* to me. Quite the opposite actually : it's because he loved other women before that he knows why he loves me and why I make him so happy. He knows what's special about me that he craves and needs and loves. And I feel confident enough to know that no other woman is exactly like me, so no other woman could give him what he needs from me. On the other hand, there are things he could enjoy that I just can't give him because I don't have them in me, or not developed enough. So if another woman could give him that, I would be happy for him.

Another thing : I TRUST my husband. I trust that he would still be a wonderful husband to me, even if he had other wives to take care of. In fact, *he* is the one who doesn't trust himself to be able to make several women happy at the same time 

In conclusion : IMO, love is not possession or exclusivity. Love is giving and sharing and trusting. Especially marital love, which is supposed to be the one closest to charity.

Del

I think it is very amazing that you feel you are able to "share" your husband physically with other women.

But please do not expect that other women can feel the same way. And please understand that polygamy won't be the best way for all women.

Even Emma Smith had a lot of problems with it although she was a very strong woman and she knew that it was a commandment from God...

She had very strong faith, but still... - don't you think she tried to do her best?

Still she was deeply hurt...

When you say "love is not possession or exclusivity" you forget something.

Of course love is not possession or exclusivity but I would say that it has something to do with it. For example when you get a baby you love it very much and this deep connection is "exclusive" between you and the baby. And this baby "belongs" to you and your husband because it's a gift from God.

You wouldn't want to give your baby away or to share it with another woman.

Also love in a marriage is not only giving but also getting.

And when a woman *NEEDS* to feel "exclusive" then the man should respect that, also the other way around. This has also something to do with LOVE!

Why do you think so many women are hurt when her husband slept with another woman? Because the don't have so much self-confidence like you?

I don't think so......

Link to comment
I think it is very amazing that you feel you are able to "share" your husband physically with other women.

To be honest... I'm the first one amazed :P But as I explained, our circumstances are special, and our relationship was never based on physical closeness, so it makes it easier.

But please do not expect that other women can feel the same way. And please understand that polygamy won't be the best way for all women.

Well, polygamy in the Church now is out of the question anyway, so women don't have to worry about it. And if God ever decides to ask them to get into it later (much later, in the Millenium or even after), He will prepare them, He will teach them, and He will make sure that their happiness remains their husband's priority.

When you say "love is not possession or exclusivity" you forget something.

Of course love is not possession or exclusivity but I would say that it has something to do with it. For example when you get a baby you love it very much and this deep connection is "exclusive" between you and the baby. And this baby "belongs" to you and your husband because it's a gift from God.

You wouldn't want to give your baby away or to share it with another woman.

It's interesting that you say that a baby belongs to us because it's a gift from God. Did you get sealed in the Temple ? Then you must remember the one little difference between what the husband promises and what the wife promises ? It precisely has to do with giving.

Also love in a marriage is not only giving but also getting.

And when a woman *NEEDS* to feel "exclusive" then the man should respect that, also the other way around. This has also something to do with LOVE!

The way I see it, it's a bit like with children. Every child in a family needs to feel that his parents love him exclusively. He needs to know that he is special, that he's not just a number, not just one in a crowd. And most parents do manage to convey that feeling, because that is what they feel. Similarly, I can conceive that a man could love several wives (or a woman several husbands for that matter) and still manage to convey that feeling of being special, of exclusivity.

Why do you think so many women are hurt when her husband slept with another woman? Because the don't have so much self-confidence like you?

I don't think so......

Self-confidence, ME ??? You don't know me <_<

Polygamy has nothing to do with a man cheating on his wife. I could enter into a polygamous marriage, but I don't think I could take it if my husband cheated on me. Polygamy is a covenant everyone in the family enters in, husband and wives. Cheating on his wife is breaking a covenant with that wife. Completely opposite things.

Del

Link to comment

Similarly, I can conceive that a man could love several wives (or a woman several husbands for that matter) and still manage to convey that feeling of being special, of exclusivity.

So let's ask the obvious - why polygamy?

If a man is no greater than a woman - why would there be polygamy in the next life and not polyadry? Could not your husband share you with several men and be content?

Link to comment

A few thoughts come to mind after reading this thread.

First, I am one who feels that, should polygamy come back, I might be able to accept it but I doubt my husband could handle it. So I don't have to worry about 'what if's. However I know several women that I have a close enough relationship that it might be feasible, if those women weren't already married to other men.

Second, love is different between any two people in a relationship - whether it is a marriage relationship or a parent-child or friend-friend relationship. And as has been said here before, love is not a zero-sum game, even though kids sometimes act as if it is.

Also, I thought I'd bring up one of the comments that usually surfaces in polygamy threads here - the aspect of a man whose wife died and marries again. True, the relationships are in sequence here on earth instead of parallel, but the idea of being madly in love with two people applies. Would any of you who oppose polygamy want to choose for someone in that situation which one wife he should be married to for all eternity, just because he happened to get married twice here on earth? He loves both intensely, perhaps in different ways but still - how could one choose?

And, before you bring it up, I do have a friend whose husband died when they were both young and now she's married again. I do know she's sealed to the first husband, but who knows who she may pick after living with this second one for most of her adult life?

Another question to those who worry about polygamy in the eternities - are you convinced that there is marriage in heaven anyway? One of my sister's sister-in-laws (or I could say my brother-in-law's sister) was talking to me once about being married in heaven and she didn't think it was possible. Her reasoning was that when we all get there, we'll have Christ's love for everyone there, thus not loving one person more than the next, so being married wouldn't be necessary.

And how about the imagery from the New Testament about Christ being the bridegroom and the Church being his bride? That sounds like polygamy to me! :unsure: And if we are to become like Christ ... :P (OK, I'll stop before someone suggests that I'm being blasphamous.)

Well, that's about all from me. I've got way too much to do with my one husband and 3 kids and 4 classes and two birthday parties coming up to spend too much time here today. <_<

Jane

Link to comment

And, before you bring it up, I do have a friend whose husband died when they were both young and now she's married again. I do know she's sealed to the first husband, but who knows who she may pick after living with this second one for most of her adult life?

That's tough. Choices always are. But why should she have to pick? If a man can marry two women, be madly in love with both, and end up with both in the next life - why can't the reverse apply? Say she was madly in love with the first. He dies. She remarries and finds them both waiting for her up there? Why not have them share her?

Link to comment
So let's ask the obvious - why polygamy? 

If a man is no greater than a woman - why would there be polygamy in the next life and not polyadry?  Could not your husband share you with several men and be content?

Several reasons :

1. Because it wouldn't make sense children-wise. One man with several women means more children. One woman with several men means just as many kids as one woman with only one man. Moreover, in polyandry, the kids don't always know who their father is, which can be a big problem on many levels.

2, Because God said it was that way and not the other way around, and I believe He knows what He's talking about. Which leads me to

3. Because I'm intimately convinced that many more women can be happy in righteous polygamy than men in polyandry. When it comes down to it, I believe that women can much more easily share a man, than men can share a woman.

Del

Link to comment
But why should she have to pick?  If a man can marry two women, be madly in love with both, and end up with both in the next life - why can't the reverse apply?  Say she was madly in love with the first.  He dies.  She remarries and finds them both waiting for her up there?  Why not have them share her?

Because that's not the way God said it would be. I don't think we know half a percent of the true and eternal nature of love and marriage. I think when we finally understand what it means to be together forever, we'll realise that polygamy makes sense, but not polyandry.

Del

Link to comment

1. Because it wouldn't make sense children-wise. One man with several women means more children. One woman with several men means just as many kids as one woman with only one man. Moreover, in polyandry, the kids don't always know who their father is, which can be a big problem on many levels.

Fine. On Earth one can argue that if you think marriage is for breeding.

3. Because I'm intimately convinced that many more women can be happy in righteous polygamy than men in polyandry. When it comes down to it, I believe that women can much more easily share a man, than men can share a woman

Hmmm..doens't sound like God to me. Didn't you and others say that once we get up there God will educate us and help us to understand and love polygamy? He can do that for women and not men? I take offense to that!

2, Because God said it was that way and not the other way around, and I believe He knows what He's talking about. Which leads me to

Ahh...and there it is. That's where it all falls back to. God said. But why???

All things being equal - you're all Gods. Man and woman. Don't think there will be paternity questions up there do you? God can make all understand that to share is not a bad thing, as you pointed out. Women can share men - so it makes sense that men can share women.

So what is it that makes you think it's OK for women to share and not men?

I think when we finally understand what it means to be together forever, we'll realise that polygamy makes sense, but not polyandry.

But can you tell me why? If there's one and not the other you have an imbalance. I don't believe in a God that would place several women to one man and would not allow the parity of the reverse. Why can men not share 1 woman and yet women are expected to share 1 man? Ask your husband tonight. 'Could you share me with several other men?' See what he says.

Link to comment
On Earth one can argue that if you think marriage is for breeding.

It's not the *only* reason, but it is one big reason indeed.

Hmmm..doens't sound like God to me.  Didn't you and others say that once we get up there God will educate us and help us to understand and love polygamy?  He can do that for women and not men?  I take offense to that! 

Sorry, I thought you were talking about polyandry on this Earth in this life.

Ahh...and there it is.  That's where it all falls back to.  God said.  But why???

I don't care why. If I had to know the reasons behind everything, I would turn crazy. There are things I want to understand, and there are others I'm happy to just believe in for now. Someday I might want to understand them and so I'll search and I'll ask God. And there are things I'll understand someday even though I'll never wonder about them. In the meantime, if I don't have a problem with something, I have no problem just accepting it without understanding it.

And if you want to know why there will maybe be polygamy in eternity but not polyandry, I suggest you ask the one who knows best : God. But as I said in my previous post, I have a feeling that this is something we simply *cannot* understand yet. Just my personal opinion, though.

Why can men not share 1 woman and yet women are expected to share 1 man?

As I already explained, I don't see polygamy as a bondage, but as a blessing and an opportunity. So technically, if God doesn't allow polyandry, I'm *sorry* for you guys, not jealous :angry:

Ask your husband tonight.  'Could you share me with several other men?'  See what he says. :blink:

I have to warn you that it's not safe to assume to know what my husband would say :wub: It's not a coincidence if we're married :lol:

Anyway, I don't know what he would say to polyandry, but I do know what he would say to polygamy : no, thanks :huh: (One wife is way enough :P<_<:unsure::ph34r: )

Del

Link to comment

I don't personally see any reason why polyandry couldn't take place in the CK if polygyny can.

Why it should will depend on why polygamy, if it does exist in the CK which I don't know for sure if it will, exists.

Bottomline--if God has a purpose that will be fulfilled by its existence, it will exist. If not, it likely won't.

Link to comment

Sorry, I thought you were talking about polyandry on this Earth in this life.

Well - both. I'm assuming that if one is good for there it's good for here as well.

And if you want to know why there will maybe be polygamy in eternity but not polyandry, I suggest you ask the one who knows best : God. But as I said in my previous post, I have a feeling that this is something we simply *cannot* understand yet. Just my personal opinion, though.

We're at an impass. I do not believe God gives us something we cannot understand. If we are incapable of understanding something I believe it will never be presented to us in the first place.

Take the Law of Moses. Few understood it - but they were supposed to. Those who took the time saw clearly what it was leading to. And eventually - all of Israel looked to the coming of a Savior.

I believe all things are this way. We are meant to understand. We are not meant to shrug our shoulders and say "uuuuu...I dunno...someday God will explain it."

As I already explained, I don't see polygamy as a bondage, but as a blessing and an opportunity.

And I think we both know that it would take very little to list the "benefits" of polyandry as well. Think of the extra income 3 dads could bring in!! Paternity? No problem. Only one man has sexual access to mom at a time. Even in polygamy we would hope this to be true, eh? The other men can use condoms if need be. Simple. How about all the help several dads could provide around the house? Holy well-kept lawn Batman!! We could go on and on. If you believed Polyandry to be God given it would be very easy to list why it is a blessing and an opportunity.

-------------

I don't personally see any reason why polyandry couldn't take place in the CK if polygyny can.

It's the only thing that makes sense (looking at the LDS faith) if...IF....women are equal to men in God's eyes. I believe they are.

Link to comment
We're at an impass.  I do not believe God gives us something we cannot understand.  If we are incapable of understanding something I believe it will never be presented to us in the first place. 

What about the Word of Wisdom ? It didn't exactly make sense when it was given, it couldn't be understood, and yet it was good.

I *do* believe that God can give us something that we don't understand. And I have no problem with that.

I don't personally see any reason why polyandry couldn't take place in the CK if polygyny can.

It's the only thing that makes sense (looking at the LDS faith) if...IF....women are equal to men in God's eyes.  I believe they are.

Irk !

Sorry, I always get ticked off when I see that old argument of equality = sameness.

You want polyandry because there's polygamy ? All right. But then I want men to be able to carry babies and women to excercise the Priesthood independently.

And then let me ask you what's the point of having 2 different genders if they have exactly the same attributes, abilities and rights ?

Del

Link to comment

What about the Word of Wisdom ? It didn't exactly make sense when it was given, it couldn't be understood, and yet it was good.

You're kidding right? For one thing - it still doesn't make a lot of sense. No tea but Coke is OK? Hmmm.

For another, if you remember your history, it was requested by Emma since she was sick of cleaning up dip on the floor. No dip on the floor made perfect sense to Emma. Alcohol abuse was understood to be deadly. Most religions at the time discouraged it. Dentists even then knew what happened to teeth in men who dipped.

It could be understood and it was. I don't think this is a good example.

But then I want men to be able to carry babies and women to excercise the Priesthood independently.

There are obvious physical differences here on Earth. Men cannot birth humans. Men are, for the most part, physically stronger. I can't see how either will be relevent in the next life. Nor why having physical differences would create a situation that disallowed other sameness.

And then let me ask you what's the point of having 2 different genders if they have exactly the same attributes, abilities and rights ?

You're right. Why should women be allowed to vote? Why should they hold public office? Why should women compete in the Olympics? Don't they know they're not as fast as men? Why should me stay home and take care of babies when the wife has a good job?

I don't buy this for a second. You say 'why should women have the same rights?' and yet I don't doubt for a second that you would scream unfair if we started taking some away that you exercise and love as part of your life.

So there are rights you don't care to have. Big deal. Many women at the turn of the century had no interest in voting. It's true. Sad, huh? Want to work and recieve equal pay? Nah...some don't think that's needed and that women should be content staying in the home. So what if you don't think women should have the same right as men to multiple partners? That's just your personal preference at work, combined with your need to justify what you think your church teaches. It doesn't take away from the idea that at no point *should* men have the right to something that a woman is not physically prevented from enjoying herself. No - I can't have a baby. Physically, odds are you aren't gauranteed an orgasm every time you have sex. Sorry...that's just the way the ball bounces. But when it comes to rights where nothing physical prevents parity...why would God place a restriction where none would be otherwise?

Link to comment
But when it comes to rights where nothing physical prevents parity...why would God place a restriction where none would be otherwise?

And how do you know that the difference between accepting polygamy and rejecting polyandry (if indeed God does either of those things) is not based on biology ? I do hope you're aware of how little we actually know of men and women's biology. And how much less we know of *resurrected* men and women's biology. Would you keep petitioning for God to give the same statute to polyandry as to polygamy if God told you that there's a biological specificity in resurrected men that makes them uncomfortable sharing one woman among several men, but that there's no such thing for women ?

About the Word of Wisdom : yes, people at the time already knew that alcohol and tobacco aren't terribly good for man. But what about hot drinks ? What about eating lots of vegetables and grains ? What about not eating much meat ?

There are obvious physical differences here on Earth.  Men cannot birth humans.  Men are, for the most part, physically stronger.  I can't see how either will be relevent in the next life.

Men not being able to bear children would still be relevant in the context of eternal gods giving birth to their own spirit children.

Why should women be allowed to vote?  Why should they hold public office?  Why should women compete in the Olympics?  Don't they know they're not as fast as men?  Why should me stay home and take care of babies when the wife has a good job? 
So what if you don't think women should have the same right as men to multiple partners?  That's just your personal preference at work, combined with your need to justify what you think your church teaches.

You're talking equality in the manner of men, I'm talking equality in the manner of God.

Men (the world, Satan, whatever) would indeed have us believe that equality is sameness in every possible matter. Thus, women are now expected to have an orgasm every time they have sex, even though as you pointed out, their body has no need or reason for a systematic orgasm.

God on the other hand, never defined equality as sameness, quite the opposite in fact. In an ideal LDS world, men would go to work and bring back an income, while women would stay at home and raise the kids. Men have the Priesthood and preside over the home, though there's apparently no biological reason for that. In God's eyes, men and women are equal but definitely not the same.

So if God says that polygamy is OK, but not polyandry, I simply don't see what the problem is, that's only one more difference.

Anyway, as far as I know, God never expressed His views on polyandry. For all I know, maybe He's got a bad surprise for you guys who will make it to the Celestial Kingdom.

Del

Link to comment

One of my sister's sister-in-laws (or I could say my brother-in-law's sister) was talking to me once about being married in heaven and she didn't think it was possible. Her reasoning was that when we all get there, we'll have Christ's love for everyone there, thus not loving one person more than the next, so being married wouldn't be necessary.

I have also wondered about this. Marriage is exclusive not inclusive. It seems counter to everything we believe about perfect love. However, I don't think that that excludes a covenant relationship. And it should be obvious that this relationship would be based on quite different things unless we believe that we will all be earning a living and all of the other very earth centered things that rule what marriage is here.

For whatever reason that polygamy was instituted, I see no indication that it can maintain itself without a steady supply of new women. According to Daynes, polygamy was on the wane before the Manifesto.

Link to comment

About the Word of Wisdom : yes, people at the time already knew that alcohol and tobacco aren't terribly good for man. But what about hot drinks ? What about eating lots of vegetables and grains ? What about not eating much meat ?

Like Hot Cocoa? No...they didn't know about that then. Good thing the LDS church came around to warn them about drinking hot, caffinated drinks like Swiss Miss.

I think eating a "balanced diet" has been recommended for a very long time.

Would you keep petitioning for God to give the same statute to polyandry as to polygamy if God told you that there's a biological specificity in resurrected men that makes them uncomfortable sharing one woman among several men, but that there's no such thing for women ?

Um...actually, I want neither. Not both.

You're getting into major suppositions. I could say "what if women's sex drives go throught the roof in the next life and could NEVER be satisfied with one partner - that is why God will have polyandry".

Why even go there? The question is - knowing what we know now, why would God want polygamy and not polyandry. I can't find anything that isn't subjective to the LDS faith itself.

Men not being able to bear children would still be relevant in the context of eternal gods giving birth to their own spirit children.

If you believe it happens physically. Why would you?

In God's eyes, men and women are equal but definitely not the same.

Believe me - I'm ALL for the differences! But there's not a single thing I would ever tell my wife that begins with "Yes...you COULD do this....but you're not allowed because you're a girl." My heart tells me neither would God.

For all I know, maybe He's got a bad surprise for you guys who will make it to the Celestial Kingdom.

I'm quite sure we'll all be surprised. We see through a glass darkly, right? Even Paul said that. Until then it's all conjecture.

Link to comment
What about the Word of Wisdom ? It didn't exactly make sense when it was given, it couldn't be understood, and yet it was good.

As I've posted elsewhere, historian Lester Bush has written an article that explains how the Word of Wisdom actually made more sense when it was given than it does now (especially when you factor in the Church's subsequent treatment of the counsel. Pioneers lugging coffee and tea across the plains and all that...)

Email me if you'd like a copy of the article.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...