Is Polygamy Inherently Sexist?

[MiserereNobis]

LDS friends,

The issue of polygamy was brought up in another thread and one poster argued that it was a system that was inherently unequal towards women. From an external 21st century viewpoint, this seems true. One husband with many wives appears to be a situation where the one man has more authority, power, what-have-you over each individual wife. For example, a man with four wives would seem to be a set-up where each wife is only a 1/4 of the relationship.

I'm wondering how posters here view this, not only as it was practiced in the 19th century, but how polygamy will be practiced in the celestial kingdom. Is polygamy simply a natural outgrowth of patriarchy? In particular, sisters, how do you feel about the prospect of sharing your husband with many other women in the celestial kingdom? Or am I misunderstanding LDS doctrine concerning this?

The Catholic Church is patriarchal insofar as it limits the priesthood to men, and we agree with you that in this mortal life gender roles have a part to play. However, the division of gender isn't inherent in our understanding of heaven, so I think the LDS view here is unique and I'm interested in not only the official doctrines, but the thoughts and feelings of those who believe it.

Thanks!

+PAX+

 

[Glenn101]

23 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

However, the division of gender isn't inherent in our understanding of heaven, so I think the LDS view here is unique and I'm interested in not only the official doctrines, but the thoughts and feelings of those who believe it.

In LDS theology, gender division is inherent.

On a secular as practiced in most parts of the world, and by most people who practice it, I would agree that it is sexist.

However, men and women have never been equal, and never will be. They are different and bring to the union different attributes that complement each other. Adding other women to the mix muddies the waters because we do not understand how it should work here on earth and how it will work in the next life. Vilate Kimball, according to her daughter, Helen Mar, had a vision of the clestial kingdom and how the plurality of wives would work before it was revealed to her by her husband or the prophet Joseph Smith. She was willing from that time forward to allow and even assist her husband to obey that commandment.

The Patriarchal Order is sexist, as it is practiced here upon this earth because all too many do not understand (men or women) how to practice it here nor how it will be practiced in the next life. But, since we receive our revelations, commandments, and instructions from Heavenly Father rather than Heavenly Mother, it would seem that this is the way they have decided that things will work.

Glenn

 

[Bobbieaware]

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

LDS friends,

The issue of polygamy was brought up in another thread and one poster argued that it was a system that was inherently unequal towards women. From an external 21st century viewpoint, this seems true. One husband with many wives appears to be a situation where the one man has more authority, power, what-have-you over each individual wife. For example, a man with four wives would seem to be a set-up where each wife is only a 1/4 of the relationship.

I'm wondering how posters here view this, not only as it was practiced in the 19th century, but how polygamy will be practiced in the celestial kingdom. Is polygamy simply a natural outgrowth of patriarchy? In particular, sisters, how do you feel about the prospect of sharing your husband with many other women in the celestial kingdom? Or am I misunderstanding LDS doctrine concerning this?

The Catholic Church is patriarchal insofar as it limits the priesthood to men, and we agree with you that in this mortal life gender roles have a part to play. However, the division of gender isn't inherent in our understanding of heaven, so I think the LDS view here is unique and I'm interested in not only the official doctrines, but the thoughts and feelings of those who believe it.

Thanks!

+PAX+

 

I often wonder how non-LDS Christians came to believe gender will have no roll in heaven when God"s established pre-fall paradisiacal order, an order God himself proclaimed to be very good, called for male and female human beings to be married forever (the paradiasical marriage of the immortal Adam and Eve would have endured forever if it hadn't been for their disobedience), God even going so far as to command the forever-married Adam and Eve to have children BEFORE THE FALL BROUGHT DEATH INTO THE WORLD. Of further significance is the fact that when God created the man and woman in the divine image ("in OUR image, after OUR likeness"), he didn't create genderless creatures incapable of having offspring. Rather, he created both males and females with each procreative gender being proclaimed to be made in the image and likeness of the divine.

Logically speaking, the Latter-day Saints have every reasonable reason to believe when they are redeemed from the fall they they will be raised into a glorious state of being similar to the one enjoyed by Adam and Eve prior to the fall. And what was the nature of that pre-fall paradiasical state of being? It was a state in which a forever-married couple lived innocent, sinless lives in the immediate presence of God, their spirits occupying immortal physical bodies that would remain either male or female forever, enjoying the right to freely partake of the fruit of the tree of life and rejoice in the sacred  fruits of sexual union (children) forever,

The big question for non-LDS Christians to ask themselves is why would God depart from his own dynamically creative blueprint of existence for male and female humans that he himself established in the beginning -- and proclaimed to be very good -- in favor of some sort of unisex neuter existence where the beautiful and gloriously purposeful attraction between men and women (marriage and family being the most wonderful and meaningful part of human life) no longer exists? Why would our HEAVENLY FATHER want his sons and daughters to live forever as little children and not as mature grownups?

Edited June 23, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Raingirl]

Yes

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

LDS friends,

The issue of polygamy was brought up in another thread and one poster argued that it was a system that was inherently unequal towards women. From an external 21st century viewpoint, this seems true. One husband with many wives appears to be a situation where the one man has more authority, power, what-have-you over each individual wife. For example, a man with four wives would seem to be a set-up where each wife is only a 1/4 of the relationship.

I'm wondering how posters here view this, not only as it was practiced in the 19th century, but how polygamy will be practiced in the celestial kingdom. Is polygamy simply a natural outgrowth of patriarchy? In particular, sisters, how do you feel about the prospect of sharing your husband with many other women in the celestial kingdom? Or am I misunderstanding LDS doctrine concerning this?

The Catholic Church is patriarchal insofar as it limits the priesthood to men, and we agree with you that in this mortal life gender roles have a part to play. However, the division of gender isn't inherent in our understanding of heaven, so I think the LDS view here is unique and I'm interested in not only the official doctrines, but the thoughts and feelings of those who believe it.

Thanks!

+PAX+

I have a much different viewpoint on this issue than I think existed in the early Church. I believe the way polygamy is supposed to be practiced is not inherently unequal. The woman has equal say in the relationship as the man. If she says, no then it could be considered sin for the man to marry another wife. That is usually the way polygamy is practiced in the world, and it is unequal. In the ideal relationship the woman consents to another relationship - to love that person. Otherwise she should say no.

Where the thorny issues come up is for instance when the Church began to believe that to be exalted one must have more than one wife. This is based upon an alleged belief of Joseph Smith, but there is nothing in our scriptures to even suggest this is true. Indeed, D&C 132 seems to clearly indicate that a marriage to one wife meets the everlasting covenant. Church history, however, goes something like this: the Gods (Heavenly Father and Yeshua) allowed this in the past, and ordained marriage, so must have ordained polygamy, and since the temporal is patterned after the celestial, they themselves must live it, and want to teach us to be like them, so gave us this "law." In early LDS speech this becomes a commandment. Witness what Glenn101 says about Vilate Kimball:

6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

She was willing from that time forward to allow and even assist her husband to obey that commandment.

This type of thinking still pervades LDS culture. Even though temporal polygamy has been banned, many LDS believe it will be practiced in heaven. This became an issue for my mother after she joined the Church, because she had members tell her - don't you want to share your husband in heaven? Which she did not. She found this repulsive, and has always told me it was an impetus for her departure from the church. I have told her 'just say no.' 

I however, do not subscribe to this view. I do not believe one has to enter temporal polygamy to be exalted, nor do I believe it is a "commandment" which we will have to live in heaven, so I guess I'm heretical. While I believe God commanded the principal be taught, that is not the same thing us commanding us to live it temporally. In fact the incorrect belief that it was necessary for exaltation I believe has led to a lot of bad stuff - a number of sects have split off from the Church on this issue in order to keep living polygamy so they could be exalted. But, for instance the FLDS somehow seemed to have forgotten the true commandment, that the first wife/ves need to consent for the principal to be valid, and their leaders choose young women(teenagers) to marry with seeming disregard for the rest of their "wives" in arranged marriages often against the wishes of these young women. This has also created a predicament for the young men, who then have no one in their community to marry so they can live happy family lives - much less be exalted. So many have ended up getting booted out of their community. Since there aren't enough women to go around in the church for each man to have multiple wives, this belief is really unfair.

However, if polygamy is a temporal practice patterned after celestial things, what then are those celestial things? What could God be trying to teach the Church? Did Yeshua have a heavenly mother? Revelation 12 teaches that the woman with 12 stars brings forth a man child who shall rule the earth. This man child gave a parable of the 10 virgins who are invited to the wedding of the bridegroom. Are these churches? How come there are only seven churches enumerated in Rev 2-3? What happened to the other three virgins of the parable? Would it be exalting to win other churches to Christ? Isn't that what missionaries try to do? Perhaps priesthood marriage is not quite the same as temporal marriage...

I realize this type of thinking is foreign to what LDS have been thinking for 150 years, but it certainly is not without scriptural precedent.

Edited June 23, 2017 by RevTestament

[rchorse]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

I often wonder how non-LDS Christians came to believe gender will have no roll in heaven when God"s established pre-fall paradisiacal order, an order God himself proclaimed to be very good, called for male and female human beings to be married forever (the paradiasical marriage of the immortal Adam and Eve would have endured forever if it hadn't been for their disobedience), God even going so far as to command the forever-married Adam and Eve to have children BEFORE THE FALL BROUGHT DEATH INTO THE WORLD. Of further significance is the fact that when God created the man and woman in the divine image ("in OUR image, after OUR likeness"), he didn't create genderless creatures incapable of having offspring. Rather, he created both males and females with each procreative gender being proclaimed to be made in the image and likeness of the divine.

Logically speaking, the Latter-day Saints have every reasonable reason to believe when they are redeemed from the fall they they will be raised into a glorious state of being similar to the one enjoyed by Adam and Eve prior to the fall. And what was the nature of that pre-fall paradiasical state of being? It was a state in which a forever-married couple lived innocent, sinless lives in the immediate presence of God, their spirits occupying immortal physical bodies that would remain either male or female forever, enjoying the right to freely partake of the fruit of the tree of life and rejoice in the sacred  fruits of sexual union (children) forever,

The big question for non-LDS Christians to ask themselves is why would God depart from his own dynamically creative blueprint of existence for male and female humans that he himself established in the beginning -- and proclaimed to be very good -- in favor of some sort of unisex neuter existence where the beautiful and gloriously purposeful attraction between men and women (marriage and family being the most wonderful and meaningful part of human life) no longer exists? Why would our HEAVENLY FATHER want his sons and daughters to live forever as little children and not as mature grownups?

This argument seems to ignore 2 Nephi 2:22-23, "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." (bold mine)

Lehi at least, seems to believe that Adam and Eve were not capable of procreation prior to the Fall. From a purely mathematical standpoint, I don't see how polygamy can be anything other than an exception to a general rule of monogamous marriages in the Celestial Kingdom. I don't buy into the rationale that women are inherently so much better than men that there won't be enough men to go around in heaven. I think marriage is meant to be monogamous, but God has at times made exceptions. All the scriptures I'm aware of support this view, statements from some prophets and general authorities notwithstanding.

[Darren10]

Sexist? No. Inherently challeging especially for wonen? Yes. 

[The Nehor]

Once the revelation on polyandry comes out the sexism will go away. Plus when I get married I only have to provide a portion of the household income. Win/Win!

[Gray]

I would say it's sexist only if it limits a plurality of spouses to men only. If it's a system where women are also free to take on multiple husbands, then it isn't sexist. However, I have my doubts about how healthy these kinds of relationships are (polyandry or polygyny)

[Bobbieaware]

57 minutes ago, rchorse said:

This argument seems to ignore 2 Nephi 2:22-23, "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." (bold mine)

Lehi at least, seems to believe that Adam and Eve were not capable of procreation prior to the Fall. From a purely mathematical standpoint, I don't see how polygamy can be anything other than an exception to a general rule of monogamous marriages in the Celestial Kingdom. I don't buy into the rationale that women are inherently so much better than men that there won't be enough men to go around in heaven. I think marriage is meant to be monogamous, but God has at times made exceptions. All the scriptures I'm aware of support this view, statements from some prophets and general authorities notwithstanding.

What you point out is obvious. But fact is that Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply while they were yet in Eden and while dwelling in the immediate presence of God prior to the fall, and while they were under the very strict commandment to not partake of the forbidden fruit. Therefore, because our first parents were given the commandment to multiply while they were yet immortal they were under the solemn obligation to try to fulfill that commandment WHILE THEY WERE IN EDEN and strictly commanded to not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. So since the fall ensued, will Adam and Eve ever be able to fulfill the first commandment God gave them while dwelling in paradiasical glory?

Here's the secret: Adam and Eve, and all the glorified sons and daughters of God, will one day be able to fulfill the commandment to have children while immortal and dwelling in God's immediate presence when the male and female inheritors of the fulness of celestial glory will inherit the glorified earth and populate it with newborn children. Just as Adam and Eve would not be able to have fallen children unless they were willing to fall, they wouldn't be able to have spirit children in God's presence unless they were willing to believe in and valiantly live the gospel of Christ.

What I'm speaking of here is analogous to the saints being specifically commanded to build a temple in Missouri during the early days of the restoration. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. But the commandment to build a temple in Independence will yet be fulfilled.at a future time.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[pogi]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

One husband with many wives appears to be a situation where the one man has more authority, power, what-have-you over each individual wife. For example, a man with four wives would seem to be a set-up where each wife is only a 1/4 of the relationship

That certainly is how polygamy is practiced in many cultures, but the practice of polygamy does not require male dominance/authority/power over each individual wife.  That certainly is not how monogamy is practiced, so I don't see why polygamy necessitates such a dynamic.  Monogamy was first socially imposed in ancient Greece and Rome, but historically woman have often preferred polygyny.  Here is an interesting article on the history of polygamy and theoretical reasons as to why monogamy dominates today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201109/why-we-think-monogamy-is-normal

In the example you gave of 4 wives, the less sexist approach would be to view each wife as constituting 1/5 of the relationship, the same as the man.  It is simply a different dynamic. 

I don't see how it is sexist where it is a consensual, mutually beneficial, and equal partnership.  I think it is difficult for us in with our romanticized and culturally imposed monogamous mindset to grasp how polygyny could be mutually beneficial, but historically that is how it was viewed. 

[Tacenda]

I have a friend that is single and she believes she'll get to marry and have a family in the Celestial Kingdom. So for people like that, I hope heaven can offer her that chance. Better yet it would be nice if she didn't have to marry into a polygamous family and she'll get to find a man that is unattached and go on to having children, that would be ideal! But deep down, I don't know if this is true. I wish it was.  ETA: This friend is close to sixty years old and suffers from a lot of ailments. She doesn't date, and feels her time for a family will probably be in the afterlife. I wish she would date, because she would be so much fun!

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Tacenda

[CV75]

9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

LDS friends,

The issue of polygamy was brought up in another thread and one poster argued that it was a system that was inherently unequal towards women. From an external 21st century viewpoint, this seems true. One husband with many wives appears to be a situation where the one man has more authority, power, what-have-you over each individual wife. For example, a man with four wives would seem to be a set-up where each wife is only a 1/4 of the relationship.

I'm wondering how posters here view this, not only as it was practiced in the 19th century, but how polygamy will be practiced in the celestial kingdom. Is polygamy simply a natural outgrowth of patriarchy? In particular, sisters, how do you feel about the prospect of sharing your husband with many other women in the celestial kingdom? Or am I misunderstanding LDS doctrine concerning this?

The Catholic Church is patriarchal insofar as it limits the priesthood to men, and we agree with you that in this mortal life gender roles have a part to play. However, the division of gender isn't inherent in our understanding of heaven, so I think the LDS view here is unique and I'm interested in not only the official doctrines, but the thoughts and feelings of those who believe it.

Thanks!

+PAX+

 

If by sexist you mean “relating to or characterized by prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex,” I do not think there is any of that in heaven, so it would not be at the root or fruit of any eternal covenant.

My take is that obedience to plural marriage covenants may have been required of some in certain dispensations of the Gospel in order for them to obtain heaven, but it is not a requirement for all people of all dispensations.

It also seems to me that people who can obey plural marriage in a non-sexist way in this life can also obey a restructure into a monogamous marriage in the next life. At least in my opinion they would have demonstrated the wherewithal to merit the choice for either structure and be able to negotiate the best arrangement for all concerned, in which case sexism would not at all be a factor. “Sharing” would never be compulsory for anyone, as important a principle as it is for any non-sexist marriage, monogamous or not.

In a non-sexist arrangement, I think it would not be a matter of power over but of power with, and of negotiated power in certain areas on certain subjects. As far as the dynamics of power goes, in some earthly plural marriage relationships a man might have only ¼ power with each of four women, and each woman have only ¼ power with him. A wife’s power is further divided between the other wives and their and others’ children; the husband’s further divided amongst his children. Adding to that is the power children have with their father, mother, plural mothers and plural half-siblings. It seems the best survival strategy for all concerned would be to share power in a sophisticated manner and guided by the Spirit.

[bsjkki]

Yes

[USU78]

Polygyny is harder on men. Let me explain why I think this.

Women are compelled to be less possessive, more sharing, less acquisitive, more cooperative. They become better saints.

Men, on the other hand, are more liable to become closed off, brooding, lonely, selfish, unconnected, unkind, irritable, self absorbed. They tend to become worse saints.

It's a terrible thing for anybody to endure. For men, it's a horror. Please don't ever bring it back.

Misere nobis: you're asking the wrong questions.

Edited June 23, 2017 by USU78

[bluebell]

I'm on the fence about it.  I don't think it's inherently sexist, but I think that it probably usually ends up that way, because it's an easy system to abuse and we're in a fallen world.

[JLHPROF]

That depends on how we define "sexist".
A quick google of definitions of sexist bring up many that could apply to polygamy and many that could not.

So I think it entirely depends on which definition of sexist you are using.

[thesometimesaint]

10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

LDS friends,

The issue of polygamy was brought up in another thread and one poster argued that it was a system that was inherently unequal towards women. From an external 21st century viewpoint, this seems true. One husband with many wives appears to be a situation where the one man has more authority, power, what-have-you over each individual wife. For example, a man with four wives would seem to be a set-up where each wife is only a 1/4 of the relationship.

I'm wondering how posters here view this, not only as it was practiced in the 19th century, but how polygamy will be practiced in the celestial kingdom. Is polygamy simply a natural outgrowth of patriarchy? In particular, sisters, how do you feel about the prospect of sharing your husband with many other women in the celestial kingdom? Or am I misunderstanding LDS doctrine concerning this?

The Catholic Church is patriarchal insofar as it limits the priesthood to men, and we agree with you that in this mortal life gender roles have a part to play. However, the division of gender isn't inherent in our understanding of heaven, so I think the LDS view here is unique and I'm interested in not only the official doctrines, but the thoughts and feelings of those who believe it.

Thanks!

+PAX+

 

I don't believe it is inherently sexist. We mere mortals do have a problem with messing things up however.

I do believe that our Mother-in-Heaven has all the power and authority she needs in her unique role.

[pogi]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm on the fence about it.  I don't think it's inherently sexist, but I think that it probably usually ends up that way, because it's an easy system to abuse and we're in a fallen world.

Honestly, it seems to me like monogamy is an easier system to abuse in terms of sexism and male dominance.  Polygyny naturally favors the women in terms of dominance in the partnership.  4 women and 1 man - which sex is going to have the dominant voice?  

I think polygamy is only abused in sexist cultures - but then again, I think monogamy is equally and more easily abused in sexist cultures. 

[Atheist Mormon]

5 hours ago, Raingirl said:

Yes

No necessarily. It is inevitable from evolutionary point of view. 

[Bob Crockett]

Sexist?  No.  Patriarchal?  Yes.  

One should not discount the right of the woman to choose for herself.  (I realize that in some systems, there are child brides and fathers compelling their daughters into marriage.  I'm not cool with that.)  

By analogy, many have condemned the Church for encouraging the Martin Handcart Company to start moving in the late year.  But few critics realize that many backed out and decided to overwinter before proceeding.  People had the freedom of will.  So do the women in plural marriages. And, as it is a fully consensual matter, what is wrong with it?  Is it "sexist" for two unmarried women to decide to cohabit with the same man?  Is it "sexist" for a wife to put up with her husband's philandering?

Edited June 23, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

Honestly, it seems to me like monogamy is an easier system to abuse in terms of sexism and male dominance.  Polygyny naturally favors the women in terms of dominance in the partnership.  4 women and 1 man - which sex is going to have the dominant voice?  

I think polygamy is only abused in sexist cultures - but then again, I think monogamy is equally and more easily abused in sexist cultures. 

That sounds good on paper but does not seem to match the reality that we know of.  Every polygamous society that we know much about throughout history has been/is male dominated.  The men have the authority in the relationship and usually legally as well.  

I don't know of any polygamist societies that were/are matriarchal or women dominated.  Do you?  Historically, it has been patriarchal societies that best support polygamy.  I think it's because women had so little power/voice in those cultures that the pros of being married/attached to a man outweighed the cons of a polygamist marriage.

You see this in Arab culture, for example, where it was better for a woman to be a servant/concubine to a man already married than it was to be single.

Edited June 23, 2017 by bluebell

[thesometimesaint]

There are a few matriarchal polygamous societies.

SEE http://modernnotion.com/polyandry-when-women-have-multiple-husbands/

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That sounds good on paper but does not seem to match the reality that we know of.  Every polygamous society that we know much about throughout history has been/is male dominated.  The men have the authority in the relationship and usually legally as well.  

I don't know of any polygamist societies that were/are matriarchal or women dominated.  Do you?  Historically, it has been patriarchal societies that best support polygamy.  I think it's because women had so little power/voice in those cultures that the pros of being married/attached to a man outweighed the cons of a polygamist marriage.

You see this in Arab culture, for example, where it was better for a woman to be a servant/concubine to a man already married than it was to be single.

That is true that polygamist cultures are typically male dominated, but so are monogamist cultures.  I suspect that it is the culture more than the marital structure that creates the sexist mindset.  I don't think we have a good example of how polygamy could be outside of a sexist culture. 

No, I can't think of a matriarchal polygamist society in history, but neither can I think of a matriarchal monogamist society.  Most anthropologists (according to wikipedia) hold that matriarchal societies do not really exist in history, with maybe a few minor exceptions.  Before the Greeks and Romans enforced monogamy, polygamy virtually dominated the planet, but monogamy did not bring with it matriarchy or marital equality.  That was due to a cultural revolution more than a marital restructuring.  

Edited June 23, 2017 by pogi

[ttribe]

6 hours ago, Raingirl said:

Yes

/thread