Why do people oppose polygamy?

[Gordon]

What *I* think the Lord thinks is right is all that matters to me. What *you* think the Lord thinks is right is all that matters to you. Is that so strange?

I guess you weren't listening. It doesn't matter what you THINK - think being the key word - is right. It only matters what the Lord SAYS is right.

Let me ask you... Do you think the Lord thinks the BofM is true? If so, HOW DO YOU KNOW! Is it ridiculous to think that the Lord has given you the tools to decide??

Do I 'THINK', no, I would say I KNOW.

HOW? you ask. Well, I know by the way the Lord has given us to KNOW - know being the key word, not think - which is by the Comforter, the HG, which the Lord sent in his place to reveal TRUTH. This isn't just me using my 'critical thinking' here, it requires finding out the truth by asking the Lord, and being right with him (such as having faith) to get an answer from the HG.

I don't think the Lord thinks the church is true. We both think we know what God thinks. You're just not able to admit that, I guess.

Your 'thinking' too much. Like I said, I have been given truth on the subject of the BoM, is it not a matter of 'thinking'.

Will you find out from the HG if the BoM is of the Lord - if it is true?

You've used your tools to conclude...

No, that's what you have choosen to do with your 'tools'. I, on the other hand, have choosen to use them to find truth - by the HG, for I CANNOT find it through myself, or any other way (save by the Savior himself).

Of course, I'm talking about matters of the Gospel.

I've used my tools to conclude that Polygamy is not something God would ask of people.

Well, you've concluded wrong, because it HAS been something the Lord has asked of people. Sorry.

[Gordon]

...if you feel sick to your stomache then you know that it is the work of the Devil.

That is correct - who do you think made you sick to your stomach??

It made you sick because you cannot understand it, not because it is not from the Lord. Sorry.

[Gordon]

One could argue that even when polygamy WAS authorized by God it still brought forth "bitter water".  There are a few books documenting the lives of early mormon women in polygamous marriages which indicate that polygamy, even when authorized by God, is not without it's harmful effects.

Aren't there harmful effects in monogamous marriages found and documented as well?

[Guest johnny_cat]

One could argue that even when polygamy WAS authorized by God it still brought forth "bitter water". There are a few books documenting the lives of early mormon women in polygamous marriages which indicate that polygamy, even when authorized by God, is not without it's harmful effects.

I suppose it depends on what you consider to be the fruits of polygyny. Not long ago, an Evangelical here said that the Mormon exodus across the plains to Utah was not of God because it resulted in suffering and even death. By that standard, the Atonement was not of God, either. However, the ultimate fruits of crossing the plains were a stronger church and a tried and committed people.

It's certainly possible to disagree on the fruits of polygyny in the early church. And one's position probably depends on one's view of the church in general. As for me, I am a descendant of polygynists, so I might be considered one of its results. As such, I think it had quite nice results in my case.

[Tchild2]

Do I 'THINK', no, I would say I KNOW.

Do I "THINK" polygamy is utter nonsense as a religious mandate, no, I would say I KNOW.

HOW? you ask. Well, I know by the way the Lord has given us to KNOW - know being the key word, not think

HOW? you ask. Well, I know by the way the lord has given us to KNOW - know being the key word, not think

which is by the Comforter, the HG, which the Lord sent in his place to reveal TRUTH. This isn't just me using my 'critical thinking' here, it requires finding out the truth by asking the Lord, and being right with him (such as having faith) to get an answer from the HG.

Hey Gordon - that is exactly what I DID, and the answer I got from the HG was that polygamy was an abomination and was never required of the LORD.

Stalemate - no, actually I KNOW that my KNOWING trumps yours, and I KNOW that you are just plain wrong.

[Gordon]

Do I 'THINK', no, I would say I KNOW.

Do I "THINK" polygamy is utter nonsense as a religious mandate, no, I would say I KNOW.

HOW? you ask. Well, I know by the way the Lord has given us to KNOW - know being the key word, not think

HOW? you ask. Well, I know by the way the lord has given us to KNOW - know being the key word, not think

which is by the Comforter, the HG, which the Lord sent in his place to reveal TRUTH. This isn't just me using my 'critical thinking' here, it requires finding out the truth by asking the Lord, and being right with him (such as having faith) to get an answer from the HG.

Hey Gordon - that is exactly what I DID, and the answer I got from the HG was that polygamy was an abomination and was never required of the LORD.

Stalemate - no, actually I KNOW that my KNOWING trumps yours, and I KNOW that you are just plain wrong.

Stalemate???

No, my dear boy, far from it.

First of all, tell me how you asked the Lord about Polygamy, then tell me how you felt about it before/when you asked. Tell me also, if you had any pre-conceived ideas of what the answer should be. Were you expecting a certain answer?

Do you believe the Bible to be scripture?? If you do, then you couldn't have gotten the answer that you say you did, for it WAS required of the Lord.

See, my answer does not contradict the Lord - yours does, which would make him a liar...

You really do need to put your personal feelings aside when it comes to the Gospel. Only those who submit their will to the Lord and become as little children shall inherit the Kingdom of G-d.

You don't like it, so it must be false - well, that's not how it works. Sorry.

[JLH]

Scott,

How about this approach.

I would first determine if such actions were against the law. I would then seek out from God what he thought about the laws of the land. If He told me to obey the laws of the land, and I had any lingering desires of polygamy after getting those answers, I would then question what polygamy would accomplish that God could not provide through monogamy. I would then conclude that polygamy was definitely wrong.

And if I was in any position to lead others, I would make God's will known to those through public statements.

What do ya think? Reasonable?

[Gordon]

Scott,

How about this approach.

I would first determine if such actions were against the law.  I would then seek out from God what he thought about the laws of the land.  If He told me to obey the laws of the land, and I had any lingering desires of polygamy after getting those answers, I would then question what polygamy would accomplish that God could not provide through monogamy.  I would then conclude that polygamy was definitely wrong.

And if I was in any position to lead others, I would make God's will known to those through public statements.

What do ya think?  Reasonable?

Are you responding to me? If you are, I'm not Scott Gordon - just Gordon (we have had this mix-up before).

As to your response: Polygamy IS against the law of the land, as well as against G-d's law - what's your problem with this?

Anyone 'deciding' that polygamy is OK for them go against the Lord, and are in jeopardy of not receiving Eternal Life - don't you know this already?

Polygamy IS wrong - the Lord has already said this! Why would you need to ask him again?

But...

The problem that some have is that they feel it NEVER was/will be OK with the Lord. That is not the case, and why they feel to speak for the Lord is beyond me.

I am not saying that I want to practice polygamy, nor am I saying that it should be allowed. I am simply showing that it IS of the Lord (past, or for future if need be).

[John Russell]

The obvious answer from an LDS perspective is that engaging in a practice that is not authorized by God does not constitute "living a righteous principle."

One could argue that even when polygamy WAS authorized by God it still brought forth "bitter water". There are a few books documenting the lives of early mormon women in polygamous marriages which indicate that polygamy, even when authorized by God, is not without it's harmful effects.

Is there any thing or practice that is capable of yielding only good outcomes? Can you name one or two?

[King Folly]

Do you believe the Bible to be scripture??  If you do, then you couldn't have gotten the answer that you say you did, for it WAS required of the Lord.

I do not believe the Bible to be any more or less scriptural than the Qu'ran.

See, my answer does not contradict the Lord - yours does, which would make him a liar...

Your answer does not contradict what YOU BELIEVE the Lord said. I don't BELIEVE he said what YOU BELIEVE he said. We have different BELIEFS.

You really do need to put your personal feelings aside when it comes to the Gospel.

You haven't put your personal feelings aside, either. You feel that the BofM and the Bible are true. I feel they are not.

You don't like it, so it must be false - well, that's not how it works.  Sorry.

You like it so it must be true - well, that's not how it works. Sorry.

You can "know" something is true FOR YOU. (Actually, all you can do is know that something is NOT TRUE, according to the promise, but that's another discussion). You cannot, however, know something is true for me.

--KY

[Mighty Curelom]

Is there any thing or practice that is capable of yielding only good outcomes? Can you name one or two?

It doesn't matter how many I can name; I'm not the one claiming that "a good fountain cannot bring forth bitter water." As I stated before, I'm a moral relativist. I don't look at things in terms of "good and evil", or in a black and white fundamentalistic manner of thinking.

If you disagree with the premise that good behavior cannot bear rotten fruit or vice versa (which is the biblical analogy Smith tweaked-- from trees to fountains) you have a disagreement with the book of mormon, not with me.

[John Russell]

Is there any thing or practice that is capable of yielding only good outcomes? Can you name one or two?

It doesn't matter how many I can name; I'm not the one claiming that "a good fountain cannot bring forth bitter water." As I stated before, I'm a moral relativist. I don't look at things in terms of "good and evil", or in a black and white fundamentalistic manner of thinking.

If you disagree with the premise that good behavior cannot bear rotten fruit or vice versa (which is the biblical analogy Smith tweaked-- from trees to fountains) you have a disagreement with the book of mormon, not with me.

I have never interpreted these analogies as behavior. Behavior sans intent is meaningless. I have always understood the analogies of trees and fountains to refer to individuals rather than behaviors, and the emerging pure water, or the fruit borne on the tree are the culmination of proper behavior coupled with righteous intent. Appropriate activities used inappropriately by abusive people will tend to yield bad fruit or impure water.

[emaughan]

MC - interesting question especially if I take it from a purely scientific POV. Polygammy has some big advantages from a natural selection standpoint. So why don't we just "naturally" practice it. You and others are stating that it leaves you with an innate distaste - this would go against evolutionary nature. Where is your innate distaste coming from given that you do not believe in God?

I'm with those that view it as built in cultural bias. No studies to back it up (but that appears to be the case with all comments on this thread) just a feeling based on my own view. I am not at all disgusted or horrified with the idea of polygamy, but I also come from a family that has polygamist ancestors on both sides. To me it is a badge of pride that I came from such wonderfull folks. Thus the "western" traditional cultural bias had little effect on me. I think it's wrong that so many judge so harshly the idea of polygamy. Over 1800 years of societly brainwashing was to what is "normal" has had a big impact.

[Mighty Curelom]

Polygammy has some big advantages from a natural selection standpoint. So why don't we just "naturally" practice it.

There are many behaviors which might benefit humankind which we don't currently practice for one reason or another. For example, it may be beneficial (from a purely darwinistic standpoint) to kill every child born with a genetic defect, but we don't do this because of cultural, social and religious mores which tell us it's "wrong". Since culture is not a static phenomenon, it's also possible that various modern cultural mores have not existed throughout the entirety of human evolution. Our primitive ape/human ancestors may have had a completely different social system of reproduction, such as a dominant alpha male who reproduces with all the females in the tribe.

You and others are stating that it leaves you with an innate distaste - this would go against evolutionary nature. Where is your innate distaste coming from given that you do not believe in God?

Cultural bias mixed with observational experience. From what I've read about polygamy as practiced by fundamentalist sects, I find it to be a repugnant practice. I have no real opinion on non-religious polygamy since i've yet to come across any evidence demonstrating it even exists in the US.

I disagree with your assertion that a cultural distaste for a behavior would "go against evolutionary nature". Evolution works via trial and error. If in fact a culture based behavior was truly a detriment to the continuation of a population, the population would either discontinue the behavior or die out. A cultural preference for monogamy doesn't seem to be causing any mass extinctions, so I don't think you can argue that choosing monogamy over polygamy "goes against evolutionary nature".

[emaughan]

I disagree with your assertion that a cultural distaste for a behavior would "go against evolutionary nature". Evolution works via trial and error. If in fact a culture based behavior was truly a detriment to the continuation of a population, the population would either discontinue the behavior or die out. A cultural preference for monogamy doesn't seem to be causing any mass extinctions, so I don't think you can argue that choosing monogamy over polygamy "goes against evolutionary nature".

I'm going by the evidence, I do not know of ANY primates that practice strict monogamy. Your stating that monogamy is simply part of evolutionary trail and error. If it is, you sure aren't allowing much time for it to actually become an innate feeling - even with punctuated equilibrium your sugesting quite a leap in such a short time frame! Your question is what is the source of those "bad" feelings in regards to polygamy. My point is that 1) Evolution does not explain everything as much as atheist would like it. 2) There really should not be "icky" feelings towards polygamy based on natural science only (time has not been long enough for such feelings to become genetically innate since monogamy has been big in western culture for only the last 1800 years - some more if you count the Romans). 3) If those "icky" feelings are not from evolution, and not God (you don't believe in Him), then one is left with my conclusion - cultural bias. That cultures shift and transform I agree with 100%.

[Mighty Curelom]

Your stating that monogamy is simply part of evolutionary trail and error. If it is, you sure aren't allowing much time for it to actually become an innate feeling - even with punctuated equilibrium your sugesting quite a leap in such a short time frame!

1-Cultural values can potentially effect evolutionary processes.

2- Cultural values can produce feelings of distaste for certain behaviors.

3-Cultural values, unlike biological evolution, do not take millions of years to develop. They can evolve in a single generation, or even faster.

Also, a behavior doesn't necessarily have to increase the survival rate of a population to remain a part of the culture. It can be benign, causing neither a benefit or a detriment to the population. It can be only slightly harmful, in which case the population will tolerate it. It can be a behavior which only a few individuals in the population participate in.

As I said before, there are plenty of culturally influenced behaviors which don't directly act to further the continuation of the species. The existence of these behaviors is certainly not unexplainable in light of evolutionary theory.

My point is that 1) Evolution does not explain everything as much as atheist would like it.

Of course that's your point. However, you've demonstrated in this and other threads that you have a profound misunderstanding (or at least a shallow understanding) of the finer points of evolution. You might want to read up on it. I suggest Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene".

2) There really should not be "icky" feelings towards polygamy based on natural science only (time has not been long enough for such feelings to become genetically innate since monogamy has been big in western culture for only the last 1800 years - some more if you count the Romans).

Nobody claimed it was genetic. I don't even know where you picked that up.

3) If those "icky" feelings are not from evolution, and not God (you don't believe in Him), then one is left with my conclusion - cultural bias. That cultures shift and transform I agree with 100%.

Yeah. That's what I said.

[dragonslayer]

The way I see it, we should be physically loyal to only one woman.

After all, how do you think God would feel if we bowed down and worshipped other false gods? The relationship between a person and God is monogomous. And likewise should be marriage.

That defines the ultimate respect, the ultimate loyalty.

[truth dancer]

In the vast majority of mammilian species, what is "normal" is serial monogamy. What is the norm is that the mating partners stay together until their offspring is independent. In the human, mates seems to remain monogomous until the child is 7.2 years (IIRC).

In terms of evolution, we need to look at a more expansive perspective. There are reasons we have evolved to feel emotions. The human has emotions that are not evidenced in animals. Human have evolved to have self awareness and compassion. Why? IMO, it is because it is beneficial to our species.

Many feel sickened with regard to polgyamy because it goes against the innate and evolved feeling of compassion and the developing respect for the equality of women. Many people regard polygamy as morally horrific because they can understand how it must feel to many women.

Let me give an example....

If a man came home one day and told his wife, "honey... I'm taking a new job. I will now be home only one day a week. Rather than the usual 50,000 dollars a year we have been accustomed to, you will now only have 10,000 to use for our five children and our home and anything like education. I won't really be able to be there much for the kids... I won't get to go to the soccer games or piano recitals unless they fall on a Thursday which is the day I will be home...Sorry but I'll come around once a week or so... and intimacy, well maybe I will be available once a month. Cause, oh, ummm... I picked four other women I want to sleep with and they each have several children so... I hope you don't mind."

MOST people would find compassion for this women.. they can feel the pain she would suffer. It doesn't feel holy to most people as we have evolved to know the feelings of others. Many people today view women as having emotional needs and feelings. Many people value women as something other than for the physical ability to increase the human species. Many people today understand that women are sexual beings as well....

My point being, evolution means things develop or unfold, IMO. While the ownership of women has existed for around 5,000 years we are moving beyond this... we are evolvling to a higher level of understanding. Life for the human is not just about procreation and survival as it is in other species and was for the human for millennia. IOW, most people can reflect upon their life and desire something more than just the primitive, instinctual needs of sex and food. We have come to understand the value of freedom, love, meaning. IMO, this is an amazing aspect of evolution. There must be purpose in the invention of knowing self awareness, compassion, romantic love.

Just how I see it...

~dancer~

[cole]

The way I see it, we should be physically  loyal to only one woman.

After all, how do you think God would feel if we bowed down and worshipped other false gods? The relationship between a person and God is monogomous. And likewise should be marriage.

That defines the ultimate respect, the ultimate loyalty.

I think your analogy is as good as you would like. I have a monogamous relationship with God. My sister has one. My father has one. This list can go on and on. Therefore God has several monogamous relationships with humans, and in polygamy as practised by the early saints the women weren't married to each other. So one could say the husband had a monogamous relationship with his first wife, and another with his second, and so on....

For a man to follow this pattern in his marriages would be the ultimate respect?

As regards polygamy, I don't think any government should tell people they can't do this. I do think there should be laws on it (age requirements, making sure the women consent to it, etc), but ultimately if a woman doesn't mind her husband having other wives who are we to tell them they can't live that way? As a woman, I do find it repulsive, BUT I've also talk to women in America who wish polygamy was still able to be practised, they are eager and willing to let their husband marry other women. I've talked to a few women from other countries where this is allowed, and to hear them talk I can't really see anything wrong with it, other than they did mention that some people abuse this. However, spousal abuse isn't limited to polygamy as any man or woman in such a relationship can attest to.

[truth dancer]

One more thing...

I don't get why some people think it is ok for a man to have multiple partners but not ok for a woman. This makes NO sense to me. It is like some think it is great for a guy to have all the sexual partners he wants but a woman must, umm, take her turn? And this is good, kind, and healthy because?

I don't want to get hung up on the sex issue but I can't think of any other reason a man would think polygamy would be good. I mean if one thinks about it... take the sex away and basically you have, a much more chaotic life, a significantly reduced lifesytle (how many men can afford four or five homes and provide for 20 or so children...?), less time to interact with children, less available opportunities for children, less (no) time to do anything in terms of hobbies, sports, etc.

As I said, take away the sex and why is it so appealing to men? Well SOME men?

If anything life would flourish if a woman had multiple partners... if you really want to look at it, women were designed to be MUCH more sexually active then men... the more resources for offspring the better chance of survival... (money = better healthcare, education, etc, etc).

I only women I have met who liked the idea of polygamy both felt they had to be married, did not like their spouse, they did not think their spouse was a good father and basically wanted their husband to leave them and their children alone... Makes sense to me.

~dancer~

[Guest TJane]

I don't want to get hung up on the sex issue but I can't think of any other reason a man would think polygamy would be good.  I mean if one thinks about it... take the sex away and basically you have, a much more chaotic life, a significantly reduced lifesytle (how many men can afford four or five homes and provide for 20 or so children...?), less time to interact with children, less available opportunities for children, less (no) time to do anything in terms of hobbies, sports, etc. 

LOL Those are all reasons I've heard for not getting married in the first place.

Doesn't matter how many wives or children a man has, he can feel all of those things - and so can women feel that way as well. In that case, I'd suggest they (1) don't get married and (2) don't have any children.

As others have mentioned, there have been other cultures where polygamy was accepted by men and women. So thus, polygamy is not the reason women are put down or treated like posessions. There are also tribal cultures where the women are the ruling force and men were chosen to be mates, not the other way around.

The idea that the only women who would approve of polygamy are those who don't like their spouse seems a bit odd - why would you want to inflict your undesirable spouse on yet another woman?

And sex as the only reason men might like polygamy ... I would guess that only by reading the journals of men who actually practiced it could we determine if that was the only reason.

As far as evolution developing a society that favors monogamy - well, considering the amount of societal acceptance for adulterous affairs and divorce for any and all reasons, I don't see much evidence for our society believing that *any* kind of monogamy is all that desirable. It appears to me that we are evolving into a culture of 'me first and only' and any relationships are just for the sake of pleasure or convienience.

Oh well. Those are my thoughts.

Jane

[drfatguy]

Truthdancer,

Polygamy makes sense to increase reproduction and lessen the burden for the women in the relationship. Polyandry has none of these advantages. My great-great-grandfather hated practicing polygamy. His wives fought constantly. It wasn't his idea, he didn't want to do it. Only a childish adolescent would think one would have an increase in sex. All one would get is an increase in headaches (two kinds "honey not tonight" and the one each guy would get trying to balance his life). Your post gives the spiritual test polygyny is: How does one balance their life? This is the beauty of polygyny, no one likes it or wants to so it if they are emotionally older than 12.

Dr Fatguy

[truth dancer]

Hi Doc...

Polygamy makes sense to increase reproduction and lessen the burden for the women in the relationship.

Actually polygamy INCREASES the burden for women because they are basically single mothers and have to work as well. (Ever read In Sacred Lonliness)? And stats show that birthrates actually go down during polygamy... I mean think about it, it is not quite as easy for a woman to get pregnant if she is only having sex once in a blue moon....

Polyandry has none of these advantages.

I'm not advocating for multiple partners here. But from an evolutionary perspective it would be the most beneficial. I don't think anyone debates the fact that the best chance of survival for children is to be born into an affluent family with few siblings. (I believe the research is showing 1.7 children is ideal and the rates for the highest levels of health go down after this IIRC) Anyway, if there were a few men providing resources for a few children they would have better healthcare, better education, better opportunities etc. etc. etc.

My great-great-grandfather hated practicing polygamy. His wives fought constantly. It wasn't his idea, he didn't want to do it. Only a childish adolescent would think one would have an increase in sex.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is an increase in sex for men. I'm suggesting that they have an increase in partners. Part of the problem is that men are limited in their ability to participate with several women given the higher ability of women to participate in sex. (To be honest I haven't read anything that would suggest JS actually cared about the emotional, physical, financial or sexual needs of women...)

All one would get is an increase in headaches (two kinds "honey not tonight" and the one each guy would get trying to balance his life). Your post gives the spiritual test polygyny is: How does one balance their life? This is the beauty of polygyny, no one likes it or wants to so it if they are emotionally older than 12.

Well, of course I don't think God had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with this...

I don't think it was some sort of test (I sincerely hope not... ahhhh).

~dancer~

[truth dancer]

Hi Jane...

As far as evolution developing a society that favors monogamy - well, considering the amount of societal acceptance for adulterous affairs and divorce for any and all reasons, I don't see much evidence for our society believing that *any* kind of monogamy is all that desirable. It appears to me that we are evolving into a culture of 'me first and only' and any relationships are just for the sake of pleasure or convienience.

I agree... sort of.

I think we are evolving to a place where people are less willing to stay in unhealthy relationships. As women are able to exist without the attachment to a man, they no longer feel it necessary to remain in a situation that is detrimental or hurtful.

I see this as a very good thing. I'm not saying it is great to break up a marriage but certainly I think people are reevaluating what marriage is and what meaning it may or may not bring to one's life.

Of course there are also those who are selfish ....

~dancer~

[Nighthawke]

Hi Doc...

Polygamy makes sense to increase reproduction and lessen the burden for the women in the relationship.

Actually polygamy INCREASES the burden for women because they are basically single mothers and have to work as well. (Ever read In Sacred Lonliness)?

Pray tell, what the heck does "In Sacred Loneliness" have to do with plural marriage? The widows of Joseph Smith were unhappy because... because they were widows maybe? Because they were then left to fend for themselves as the Saints were kicked out of Nauvoo maybe? Because they had to leave theirs homes and travel, in miserable conditions all the way to Winter Quarters, losing family members along the way maybe? Then there was the destitute conditions of Winter Quarters for the winter maybe? Then the trek into the Salt Lake Valley, more death and hardship maybe? Then the business of settling in the Salt Lake Valley, living in mud huts and/or tents and/or cabins all with leaky roofs and the wind going through offering practically no shelter from the elements maybe? Did they finally find peace... nope, then they had to put up with more persecution by self-righteous anti-polygamists who caused them more heartache for the rest of their lives by trying to get rid of polygamy and then jailing them and their children and their husbands forcing everyone to live separate lives in the underground... but hey, let's blame it on polygamy, not on the critics of the Church heck no, it was all because of polygamy. Yeah, in your dreams.