Is Polygamy Inherently Sexist?

[Rain]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I believe the church, like the Bible, believe the man is the head of the household. Would that be equal?

I've always heard this quip, maybe even from fellow LDS women, can't remember. Something like, the husband is the head but the women are neck, and head can't be moved without the neck, haha. 

But we're always told that they must lead in righteousness, or we aren't to follow what they say or do. Just as the husband is to follow Christ, we are to follow our husbands. I never did like that, that my husband was in between me and the Saviour. Like all I have to worry about is following his lead, and he follows Jesus Christ. 

 

"The man may be the head of the household. But the woman is the neck, and she can turn the head whichever way she pleases." From My Big Fat Greek Wedding

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Physics Guy said:

Who would seriously be defending polygamy in the twenty-first century, if they weren't religiously obligated to defend the morality of a polygamous prophet?

Those people who believe functional adults should have the right to choose.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

perhaps I am misunderstood.  I am not arguing that all women in all situations prefer, or should prefer, polygyny.  My main argument is that it is not sexist if a woman today makes an informed decision out of her own free will, without coercion.  I don't suspect that it would be the popular choice, but I do suspect it would happen more frequently if it was legal and not so taboo.

Yes, I recognize that.

I also recognize for myself there are women out there who intelligently and reasonably choose polygamy (including polyamory) for various reasons.

 But how you were writing it made it sound like a typical, historical choice to prefer polygyny over monogamy even when both options were equal.  Saying women have made the choice for polygyny without adding conditionals such as "some women" is like saying "dogs have three legs" when what is likely meant is "some dogs have three legs, due to accidents and genetic defects"...you have limited it to a subset and defined the qualities.  PsychologyToday did this in making it a subset of women who were willing to participate in polygyny because it gave them access to a more elite male.  Your paraphrases generalized that choice too broadly, imo.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

This is a legitimate question for today.  For the time period when polygamy was being practiced in the Church a single or monogamist man was not able to be equally powerful in the community with a polygamist.  Certain callings, ordinances, and opportunities were withheld from men who would not live plural marriage, and by connection, from their wives.  John Taylor even records that in a revelation.

And this is why one can't point to early LDS as evidence that women felt the same way about plural marriage as monogamy,  There were benefits attached to polygyny at the time that were not attached to monogamy.

Currently teachings are there are no added benefits outside of men being able to be with all the women they have loved in the eternal sense only.  It should hardly be surprising therefore that women look at this and see the costs without any rationale given for them having to sacrifice for their personal progression and therefore either reject the idea outright or assume that the idea is valid, but that can only be if women are considered as not important enough to sacrifice for in their view.

If teachings shift to including multiple husbands for women or at least the same wording and assumptions for women as men, I think most problems will be solved.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Those people who believe functional adults should have the right to choose.

Wouldn't this argument also apply to legalizing same-sex marriage?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Would you ask that question of me if I said "women are capable of choosing a non-sexist monogamous relationship"?  Wether monogamous or polygamous, a woman's choice can have bearing whether or not it is sexist.  I don't see where  you are going with this unless you are of the position that polygyny is inherently sexist.  Is that your position?  If not, I don't understand why my statement is confusing or receiving pushback, because I don't feel like I would receive this line of questioning if I said the same statement in regards to monogamous relationships.

I stand by what I said, "women are capable of choosing non-sexist polygynous relationships."  

 

It depends on how you are defining "sexist".  If you mean oppressive or attempting to actually control another, there can be non-sexist polygynous marriages.  

But if you mean equal in potential control in a marriage relationship, then I don't believe polygynous marriages can be nonsexist.  A man always has the ability to withhold from the relationship, it is his choice alone.  He says "no" to any of his wives, they must do without what a male can give her or leave the marriage.  However, the only time a man in polygynous marriages can be in a situation where he has no access to female companionship, sex, whatever in his marriage is when all the wives agree to withhold.  Thus a woman has no power on her own and only has it in agreement with the other wives.

So there may be polygynous marriages where power is balanced between the husband and his wives as a whole, but not on an individual basis.  Wives are dependent on other wives to give them any power.

(This is outside of power that comes from personal attributes, such as intelligence, beauty, disposition or cultural power that might give a first wife or the most elite woman statuswise the ability to order the other wives to withhold from their husband, but I am aware of no culture that allows for this)

Edited June 25, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Wouldn't this argument also apply to legalizing same-sex marriage?

Yep.

But obviously there are those who think it is appropriate in some cases, but not in others.  People generally believe their reasons for allowing what they approve of and rejecting others are morally logical and consistent, ignoring that their assumptions may not be seen that way by others.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ok, I see what you are saying. However, I did ask for more than just an evaluation of 19th century polygamy. I was wondering, too, how people felt about polygamy in the celestial kingdom, and how women here in particular feel about the prospects of practicing it.

Also, I don't think it is a stretch to ask about sexism and polygamy. A very common analysis of polygamy is that it sets up an inherently unequal situation between the husband and wives. There are now three pages of people discussing it, so I think it is a discussable topic.

"Inherently" again?

What if that is fine with the wives who see their roles differently than you do?  Does it matter how many.....people.... discuss it if they are wrong?

You can get people to discuss whether or not we actually landed on the moon as well, and often have, right here.

Edited June 25, 2017 by mfbukowski

[BlueDreams]

On 6/23/2017 at 0:27 AM, 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 haven't been able to read the thread, but decided to respond to you first before doing so....just so it can be my ideas solely on this. 

I do want to say though, I'm definitely not an expert in this area, to say the least. I think in general, there is an inherent inequity in polygamy. But at that time where the entire society was generally rigged against female successes, I do think polygamy at times could be an unusual vehicle for greater female autonomy. From the modern peaks that I've seen of polygamy (usually TV) in LDS couples that aren't super crazy...I think the dynamics in the marriage relationships aren't that easily simplified. In someway the male influence is also reduced as he's spread thin between 4 spouses. I think the dynamics of polygamy can increase the likelihood of conflict in family. This I don't have a ton of proof of...it just seems obvious. You add more people, you'll add more mess.  

It depends on what is meant by patriarchy. I don't think it's necessarily a natural outflow. In societies that are extremely sexist/patriarchal...they can also generally be monogamous (such as many asian cultures). They may have a mistress, but that is not the same as what you're describing. 

As for me, I do not assume that I will have to share my hypothetical husband with another woman. I think of polygamy as the rare exception to the general God-ordained pattern of one woman to one man set up from the beginning of time. I believe in the Book of Mormon assertion that 9 times out of 10 it's an abomination before God. But that sometimes in rare circumstances with specific parameters He may allow it to happen. I don't know what that means for polygamy, polyandry, and any complicated sealing patterns that exist in the eternities. I do know we'll be one family in the end....so whatever reshuffling that will inevitable have to happen, I figure it will make sense then, if it doesn't now. 

 

With luv,

BD

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

It depends on how you are defining "sexist".  If you mean oppressive or attempting to actually control another, there can be non-sexist polygynous marriages.  

But if you mean equal in potential control in a marriage relationship, then I don't believe polygynous marriages can be nonsexist.  A man always has the ability to withhold from the relationship, it is his choice alone.  He says "no" to any of his wives, they must do without what a male can give her or leave the marriage.  However, the only time a man in polygynous marriages can be in a situation where he has no access to female companionship, sex, whatever in his marriage is when all the wives agree to withhold.  Thus a woman has no power on her own and only has it in agreement with the other wives.

So there may be polygynous marriages where power is balanced between the husband and his wives as a whole, but not on an individual basis.  Wives are dependent on other wives to give them any power.

(This is outside of power that comes from personal attributes, such as intelligence, beauty, disposition or cultural power that might give a first wife or the most elite woman statuswise the ability to order the other wives to withhold from their husband, but I am aware of no culture that allows for this)

To me, marriage is more about compromise than control.  Each person should have equal say, and that voice should never be leveraged through sex manipulation, or any other form of manipulation or unrighteous dominion.  I think it is terribly unhealthy and manipulative for any partner in a marriage to attempt to get their way by withholding sex.  

I am approaching this from the assumption of a healthy partnership dynamic, so, given a healthy marriage dynamic without unrighteous dominion and manipulation, can you give me some other examples as to why polygynous partnerships cannot be equal in voice?  If businesses can create equal power in partnerships of 1 male and 1 female partner, or 1 male and 4 female partners, I don't see why marriages can't do it as well.  My point is that it is possible to create equity, not that inequity is not possible. 

The only unavoidable inequity that I can think of is sex.  The man is obviously going to get more of it.  From a physiological standpoint however, I think that plays into both the man's and the woman's natural libidos, potentially creating more balance.  In other words, the typical dude wants it more often, then the typical woman.  I do see some obvious and potential problems with jealousy, but I don't think it is entirely unavoidable.  It certainly would not be without it's challenges. 

Edited June 25, 2017 by pogi

[smac97]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Interesting. It seems like she is trying to address in the book some of the things my questions were on. Is she viewed in a negative light for writing this book? USU78 appears not to like her.

We discussed Pearson's perspective on polygamy at some length in this thread from last year.  As I understand it, Sis. Pearson (who is a member of the Church) proposes that the Church abandon / repudiate the doctrine of polygamy.  Not merely the practice, mind you - that already happened - but the doctrine.  That would necessarily include the various canonized LDS scriptures on the subject.

Some excerpts from one of my posts:

Quote

I have a lot of compassion and empathy for people who are not comfortable with the concept of polygamy.  I'm not particularly comfortable with it.  I do not understand it.  So much of the Restored Gospel comports with my general, gut-level sense of "right" and "wrong," but polygamy . . . doesn't.

However, neither does animal sacrifice.

Neither does Nephi slaying Laban.

Neither does the slaying of Nehor.

Neither do the deaths described in 2 Kings 2 ("Go up, thou bald head...").

And so on.

There are all sorts of things in play here.  Context matters.  A lot.  Historical context.  Social/cultural context.  Scriptural context.  Gospel context.  So does accuracy in conveyed information.  So do my personal life experiences, as well as the importance of properly characterizing those experiences as finite, blinkered, and not altogether accurate (rather than definitive, perfected and utterly, pristinely correct).

In other words, my sense of unease is not the most reliable moral barometer in the world.  So objectivity helps.  So does research.  Lots of research.  And patience.  And humility (at the prospect that my "ick factor" may be more about me than about the thing I find to be "icky").  And a willingness to re-assess previous assumptions.  But most of all . . . faith.  Lots and lots of faith.

...

I can accommodate an argument from Sis. Pearson that the doctrine of polygamy was, in some (many?) instances an ill-understood and ill-implemented concept among the Saints.  But to say that it is not revelatory at all?  That Joseph Smith was just looking for a way to slake his lusts for other women, such that he fabricated a "revelation" and presented it to the Church?  And God, the same God who publicly rebuked Joseph several times regarding his failings and errors, was just fine with Joseph abusing his prophetic mantle in one of the most egregious ways imaginable?  That's her theory (it rather has to be, I think)?

...

Well, it's a bit much.  If polygamy is "indefensible" as Sis. Pearson claims, does she address the experiences of the 19th-century Saints who were actually called upon to live it, and who practiced it during a time when moral sensibilities about sex were far more stringent than they are now, hence making polygamy at that time all the more difficult to accept, which many of the Saints nevertheless did?  I doubt it.  

So I'll be curious as to the "path" Sis. Pearson is laying out, and whether it will involve rejection of scripture (likely), questionable appeals to vox populi and their "ick factor" dislike of polygamy (very likely) (and keep in mind I share that ick factor), studied avoidance of the thoughts and opinions of the Saints who actually lived in polygamous families, or else limiting such thoughts/opinions to those who disliked the practice (likely), ark-steadying and presumptuous declarations to the Brethren about abandoning/rejecting revealed doctrines (likely), and a revelatory basis for declaring polygamy to be something other than what the Church teaches it to be (that it is "indefensible" and an "error" to be "corrected," and that God has selected Carol Lynn Pearson rather than His prophets and apostles to do that correcting).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited June 25, 2017 by smac97

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

But how you were writing it made it sound like a typical, historical choice to prefer polygyny over monogamy even when both options were equal. 

Just to clarify, that wasn't my intention. I often see things as implied in what I write, so sorry if I was unclear. 

[thesometimesaint]

6 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Who would seriously be defending polygamy in the twenty-first century, if they weren't religiously obligated to defend the morality of a polygamous prophet?

There are plenty of non-religious people with more than one spouse.

[thesometimesaint]

Sociologically speaking having  more than one wife is unsustainable over the long haul. The more valued  men have a growing proportion of the woman, leaving the less valued men without the stabilizing effect of family. A unattached young male is one of the most dangerous animals there is.

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Who would seriously be defending polygamy in the twenty-first century, if they weren't religiously obligated to defend the morality of a polygamous prophet?

What are your thoughts about polygamy vis-à-vis same-sex marriage?  It seems like the former has a far more robust sociocultural pedigree (many cultures have practiced polygamy or are descended from cultures which previously did, as compared to the pretty much complete novelty of SSM), and also a much more coherent underlying rationale (polygamy facilitates procreation, as compared to the 100% infertility rate in SSMs).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

To me, marriage is more about compromise than control.  Each person should have equal say, and that voice should never be leveraged through sex manipulation, or any other form of manipulation or unrighteous dominion.  I think it is terribly unhealthy and manipulative for any partner in a marriage to attempt to get their way by withholding sex.  

I am approaching this from the assumption of a healthy partnership dynamic, so, given a healthy marriage dynamic without unrighteous dominion and manipulation, can you give me some other examples as to why polygynous partnerships cannot be equal in voice?  If businesses can create equal power in partnerships of 1 male and 1 female partner, or 1 male and 4 female partners, I don't see why marriages can't do it as well.  My point is that it is possible to create equity, not that inequity is not possible. 

The only unavoidable inequity that I can think of is sex.  The man is obviously going to get more of it.  From a physiological standpoint however, I think that plays into both the man's and the woman's natural libidos, potentially creating more balance.  In other words, the typical dude wants it more often, then the typical woman. 

It, however, is not just about inequality.  It is about having enough time to get needs met.  Instead of lots of one on one time, the woman gets at best a quarter time alone with her partner to discuss things  and likely not that because it will take tons more time figuring out how to make things work as a group and then add in increased time the husband needs to put in as father.  Even if the women only have two children each, that is eight kids for the dad.  My husband came from an eight kid family, there are some big benefits to large families, but frequent special time with one's parents isn't one of them.  

Women often care about this one on one communication time as much or more than sex, so dismissing having to share one's husband because one doesn't want sex as much ignores what is often the most important type of attention a woman desires.  Intimacy takes time and effort.  Marriages work because people adapt to each other.  Having to adapt to four other adults rather than just one means your voice gets heard 1/5 as opposed to 1/2 as much.  In a home with two parents, this can often take place when sharing tasks.  How is this going to happen with other wives joining in any conversation that doesn't take place behind a locked door?  With that large of a family, you can't practically block off access to the kitchen or laundry or wherever conversations can occur when it is just two adults in the house.  This can be solved by having different homes, but then the father and husband is completely absent most of the time and it amounts to single parenthood.  And the dad probably feels like he is only there to put out fires given the limited time he's available.

In a big family, generally the one that is the quietest gets the least attention.  In a relationship of five adults, needs will never be equal and there will always be issues for even the most functional of individuals in times of stress.  Someone is going to get chronically ill, have a nasty accident, etc.  Not saying it can't work, but maintaining family equilibrium will be very hard and there is a big risk that someone's needs will be neglected because of not wanting to make waves.

What if the wives want different lifestyles for themselves and their children?  What if the kids have very different temperaments?  Just because people have healthy attitudes and personalities doesn't mean they want the same things.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Calm

[Vance]

On 6/23/2017 at 1:27 AM, MiserereNobis said:

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.

To me, this is a very interesting admission.  So, instead of the role of the sexes in marriage and family preparing you for what it is going to be like in heaven ie Eternal Life, it is actually of no eternal value to you at all.

 

God sure missed an opportunity with that one then.  

[MiserereNobis]

33 minutes ago, Vance said:

To me, this is a very interesting admission.  So, instead of the role of the sexes in marriage and family preparing you for what it is going to be like in heaven ie Eternal Life, it is actually of no eternal value to you at all.

 

God sure missed an opportunity with that one then.  

You're always so confrontational Vance. Are you this way in real life or is it more of an internet thing?

To address the bolded, CFR that family is of no eternal value to Catholics.

[Vance]

Just now, MiserereNobis said:

You're always so confrontational Vance. Are you this way in real life or is it more of an internet thing?

To address the bolded, CFR that family is of no eternal value to Catholics.

It must be an internet thing.

To answer your CFR, I quote you.

Quote

However, the division of gender isn't inherent in our understanding of heaven, . . .

No gender (gender is for pronouns, so we really should be using the term sex, but I digress), no male, no female, no father, no mother, no family, ergo, family in mortal life doesn't inherently train you for heaven.  God could have formulated a better method for the perpetuation of the species that could have also been patterned after what you expect heaven to be like.

He sure missed a very great opportunity.

 

Just pointing out the obvious.

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Vance said:

To answer your CFR, I quote you.

I never said families have no eternal value, so you can't quote me.  My CFR still stands.

But since I'm a nice guy in real life and on the internet, I'll help you out by showing how wrong you are. Now you don't have to spend time looking for a reference that doesn't exist! Pope St. John Paul II promulgated an apostolic exhortion called Familaris Consortio where he discusses the roles of the Church and the family.  Here's an excerpt:

Quote

God is love[21] and in Himself He lives a mystery of personal loving communion. Creating the human race in His own image and continually keeping it in being, God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion.[22] Love is therefore the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being.

As an incarnate spirit, that is a soul which expresses itself in a body and a body informed by an immortal spirit, man is called to love in his unified totality. Love includes the human body, and the body is made a sharer in spiritual love.

Christian revelation recognizes two specific ways of realizing the vocation of the human person in its entirety, to love: marriage and virginity or celibacy. Either one is, in its own proper form, an actuation of the most profound truth of man, of his being "created in the image of God."

Love is the inherent innate vocation of every human and this vocation can be met either through religious celibacy or marriage and family life.  So yes, family has eternal value because it is through family we meet our deepest vocation to love, or as the Holy Father beautifully said, family is an "actuation" of being created in the image of God.

2 hours ago, Vance said:

ergo, family in mortal life doesn't inherently train you for heaven

This is where your argument falls down. There is no logic behind your "ergo." Just because the family doesn't exist in heaven as it does here doesn't mean the family doesn't train you for heaven. That would be like saying since there are no up-downs in a football game, doing up-downs in a football practice doesn't prepare a player for a football game. Or pick any training regimen that doesn't actually appear in the thing you are training for.

Family trains us for heaven by giving us the opportunity to express our deepest calling to love one another. That has the greatest eternal value (at least for Catholics, and I hope for you, too).

Edited June 25, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

Would you ask that question of me if I said "women are capable of choosing a non-sexist monogamous relationship"?  Wether monogamous or polygamous, a woman's choice can have bearing whether or not it is sexist.  I don't see where  you are going with this unless you are of the position that polygyny is inherently sexist.  Is that your position?  If not, I don't understand why my statement is confusing or receiving pushback, because I don't feel like I would receive this line of questioning if I said the same statement in regards to monogamous relationships.

I stand by what I said, "women are capable of choosing non-sexist polygynous relationships."  

 

The statement you made that started this line of discussion was- "My main argument is that it is not sexist if a woman today makes an informed decision out of her own free will, without coercion."

If i said "My main argument is that it is not abusive if a woman today makes the informed decision out of her own free will, without coercion,"  would you agree with that?  Would you agree that what determines whether a relationship is abusive is whether or not the woman chooses it of her own free will?  I wouldn't.  The relationship is either abusive or not, regardless of how the woman reacts to it.  

Likewise, i don't agree that what determines if a polygamous relationship is sexist is whether or not the woman chooses it.  If a relationship is sexist, it's sexist independent of how the woman reacts to it.

I'm not saying that nonsexist polygamous relationships don't exist or that all polygamous men are sexist or that women are not capable of choosing to be in a nonsexist polygamous relationship and shunning a sexist one.  

I'm just disagreeing with your first statement, which said that a relationship isn't sexist if a woman chooses it.

[Vance]

40 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I never said families have no eternal value, so you can't quote me.  My CFR still stands.

I never claimed you did.  But simply put, it is a logical conclusion to your statement. 

40 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

But since I'm a nice guy in real life and on the internet, I'll help you out by showing how wrong you are.

Unfortunately, you are missing my whole point.  And it is beginning to look intentionally so.

The sad fact of the matter is that God missed a very great opportunity to have this life be a better training ground for heaven.

If the relationships of family, ie father, mother, husband, wife, parent child do not continue in heaven, there was no need for them in mortal life.  God, in His Its (sorry, no sex in the heavens) omnipotence could not create a better pattern of heaven on earth?  Really?

 

40 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Family trains us for heaven by giving us the opportunity to express our deepest calling to love one another. That has the greatest eternal value (at least for Catholics, and I hope for you, too).

Missing the point that since the family does not continue in heaven, it cannot be the best approach that God could have used.

Why does pointing this out, irritate you so?

 

[Vance]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Love is the inherent innate vocation of every human and this vocation can be met either through religious celibacy or marriage and family life. 

If celibacy is the pattern of heaven, it is obviously the better approach in mortal life.  Yet, it doesn't provide for the continuation of the species.   A very small problem that God in Its infinite wisdom and power could have easily solved.

Thus, a missed opportunity.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Vance

[pogi]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

It, however, is not just about inequality. 

It is If your argument is that polygamy is sexist for reasons of inequality of control or power, as I understood your argument.  Challenges in balancing needs of all involved does not make it sexist.

I am not arguing that polygyny is the best form of marriage.  It certainly is not something that I would choose.  There is no doubt that a polygynyst marriage would pose unique challenges in getting everybody's needs met, including the man's needs.  It would be severely limiting in terms of life outside of family and would multiply stress load, emotional fatigue in dealing with relationship issues with not 1, but 4 women (every man's dream!) One could not have alone time without ignoring the needs of others, It would be a nightmare to balance your own needs with everybody else's - but that doesn't make it inherently sexist.  Deciding to have more than one child is not wrong because it poses new and unique challenges.  Along with those challenges are new and unique opportunities. 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2017 by pogi

[MiserereNobis]

12 minutes ago, Vance said:

Unfortunately, you are missing my whole point.  And it is beginning to look intentionally so.

Hmmm, I'm beginning to think the same thing about you.

12 minutes ago, Vance said:

The sad fact of the matter is that God missed a very great opportunity to have this life be a better training ground for heaven.

That's your conclusion, and it is a sad fact that you think of God that way.  On the other hand, the Catholic Church believes in God's infinite love and that He took a terrible situation (Adam's fall) and turned into the best situation He could.

Of course, as a Mormon you don't believe this, but at least try to understand the Catholic point-of-view instead of belittling it and God.

15 minutes ago, Vance said:

If the relationships of family, ie father, mother, husband, wife, parent child do not continue in heaven, there was no need for them in mortal life.

I already explained why this is false. If you'd like more details, please read Pope St John Paul II's apostolic exhortion.

Before I continue, however, do you really want to understand the Catholic position?

16 minutes ago, Vance said:

God, in His Its (sorry, no sex in the heavens) omnipotence could not create a better pattern of heaven on earth?  Really?

Sarcasm and mockery of God...?

18 minutes ago, Vance said:

Why does pointing this out, irritate you so?

The subject doesn't bother me. What you are pointing out doesn't bother me, because I clearly know more about Catholic teaching than you do; your attempts to explain Catholic ideas is rather silly, much like when people try to say things like Mormons believe they are going to get their own planet.

What actually irritates me is your tone and attitude. Instead of trying to understand the Catholic position, you mock, belittle, and deride a straw man of it. You engage in the rhetorical tactics that Mormons rightly condemn in anti-Mormonism. If that was your intention, I suppose you've won the rhetorical battle, though I wonder why you would enjoy such things. It doesn't speak highly of your character.

So I'll ask again, do you really want to understand what Catholics believe? If so, change your attitude and I'll explain it to you. Otherwise, good day.