Is Polygamy Inherently Sexist?

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

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.

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?

Sarcasm and mockery of God...?

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.

If he isn't, I would be very interested. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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.

Ok, then we are agreed and I retract that comment.  My position was clarified in saying that women can choose non-sexist polygynist relationships, but if it still makes it confusing as to where I stand, I am fine with retracting the comment you have issue with, because I can see how it was not clear.

Edited June 25, 2017 by pogi

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

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).

Thought I might intercede a little here in your discussion with Vance. I definitely see your side of the coin. Just as Yeshua was in training, so to speak, to be the Father, and us his children, in heaven our scriptures teach some will minister, and some will be ministered to. Yeshua taught that those who followed Him would judge the twelve tribes with him in the regeneration - they will become His ministers, which is a parental role. Living here on earth does indeed train us in the parental role assuming we have children in a heterosexual relationship. So I can agree that the heavenly role does not need to mirror the temporal family unit as closely as LDS have traditionally thought for the temporal family unit to be a useful experience for our future heavenly lives.

[Vance]

On 6/25/2017 at 11:10 AM, MiserereNobis said:

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.

I don't think of my Heavenly Father that way at all, just the triune God of orthodox Christianity.

Apparently the triune God is less omnipotent than I thought.

 

Quote

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.

I understand the Catholic point-of-view quite well.  Why was pointing out the perceived flaws and weaknesses of it "belittling"?

Quote

I already explained why this is false.

Apparently it isn't false. Does not celibacy better prepare you for heaven?

Quote

Sarcasm and mockery of God...?

Isn't associating a sex to God through such words as "He", "His", and "Father" mockery, when no such condition exists? OR do they?

Quote

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.

Perhaps, I do have it wrong.  Are you saying that family relationships DO continue to exist in heaven?  That marriage is indeed eternal?

I was convinced that Catholics did NOT believe that.  I am indeed sorry to get it wrong.

Quote

What actually irritates me is your tone and attitude.

Well, I will try to do better.

Quote

Instead of trying to understand the Catholic position, you mock, belittle, and deride a straw man of it.

I understood that Catholics rejected the concept of marriage in heaven and thereby family relationships as well.

Now that you have corrected me, I will take all of what I said back.

Quote

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.

Apparently I have not won because I had it all wrong.  Family relations and marriage do continue in the Catholic point of view. A thing that I had never supposed.

Quote

It doesn't speak highly of your character.

Something you would know nothing about.

Quote

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.

Either family relationships and marriage continue or they don't.  If they don't, then they obviously are not the best mortal training approach available to an omnipotent God.

Edited July 3, 2017 by Vance

[Vance]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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.

So, all the best football teams spend more practice time doing up-downs than anything else, because it is the BEST training item available to actually playing the game?

That is it coaches!!! No more scrimmages during practice.  Spending more time doing up-downs are the better approach.

Get back on topic please. This has been a calm discussion of a contentious subject so let's keep it that way. The OP: is polygamy inherently sexist

[Physics Guy]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

It seems like [polygamy] has a far more robust sociocultural pedigree [than same-sex marriage] (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).

I don't see sociocultural pedigree as an important issue for modern marriage law. Dying of the plague has a far more robust sociocultural pedigree than MRI scans. If something awful has a long history, that's all the more reason to put it behind us as quickly as possible. If something good is new, that's all the more reason to take it up quickly. Perhaps you may argue that polygamy is good and same-sex marriage is bad, but historical pedigree is simply irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

I don't see procreation as an essential issue here, either, but for what it's worth, I don't see how procreation favors polygamy over same-sex marriage at all. Polygyny only facilitates procreation if there is a shortage of men. Polyandry doesn't help procreation much at all.

Gay couples are not 100% infertile. Gay men can donate sperm, and lesbian mothers can conceive with donated sperm. I don't know how many gay couples actually want to do that, but I bet that legal single-sex marriage tends to make the number go up, rather than down. So encouraging procreation does favor same-sex marriage, and does not favor polygamy.

[MiserereNobis]

Good day to you, Vance.

[MormonVideoGame]

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

Yes. It's called freedom

15 hours ago, pogi said:

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. 

You have a point 

"An Inconvenient Truth: Sexual Monogamy Kills Male Libido"
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/200805/inconvenient-truth-sexual-monogamy-kills-male-libido

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

The reality is that most married men practice "secret pologamy" known as cheating. See http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J398v01n03_03

So at least polygamy, polyandry, polyamory eliminate the deception. What is worst in your view?  

I think we should just let rational persons decide if they want to be part of a plural marriage relationship. 

Edited June 25, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

So at least polygamy, polyandry, polyamory eliminate the deception. What is worst in your view?

Years ago I saw an interview with an FLDS guy and his wives. He made this point. He said that men cheat all the time and women wonder if their husbands have been with another woman. He then said that his wives know for sure that he's been with other women so there's no wondering about it.

I thought it was a weak argument, from a religious point-of-view, because it takes something as special and sacred as the family and uses the "lesser of two evils" approach on it. The choice shouldn't be between cheating and polygamy. Cheating shouldn't even be an option.

[MormonVideoGame]

14 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Years ago I saw an interview with an FLDS guy and his wives. He made this point. He said that men cheat all the time and women wonder if their husbands have been with another woman. He then said that his wives know for sure that he's been with other women so there's no wondering about it.

There is a difference, the FLDS church threatens you with Hell. I am against psychological manipulation. 

To clarify "So at least polygamy, polyandry, polyamory eliminate the deception. What is worst in your view?" 

My point is that polygamy shouldn't be condemned as sexist, just let consenting rational people decide if they want to be in a plural marriage relationship. 

Edited June 25, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Bobbieaware]

MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE? Some questions:

I'm curious to know whether or not the following famous passages from the apostle Paul's epistle to the Ephesian saints indicates this most prolific New Testament author was a sexist?

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. (Ephesians 5)

If you believe the the above passages do not show Paul was a sexist, please explain why you believe so? 

If you do believe Paul's language demonstrates he was a sexist, do you also believe the current leadership structure of the LDS Church is  sexist?

Thanks

Edited June 25, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[rodheadlee]

Sexist, it's a word used today to slay men. I'd like to kill that word. If you don't think women have used their charms to get what they want/need from men since the beginning of time then you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

On 6/22/2017 at 11:27 PM, 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 think it is sexist and hard to reconcile with the golden rule.

[thesometimesaint]

25 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think it is sexist and hard to reconcile with the golden rule.

In this sick sad world Those that have the Gold rule is the norm.

[Vance]

Definition of sexism

1 :  prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially :  discrimination against women

2 :  behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

 

Is Polygamy Inherently Sexist?

1. No.

2. yes..

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

In this sick sad world Those that have the Gold rule is the norm.

I think with any authoritarian system, it's good to be on top and not so much if you aren't.

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think it is sexist and hard to reconcile with the golden rule.

I think this is a good point.  

Would those men who support polygamy be as supportive if we were talking about them living polyandry?  If they wouldn't be, then that's probably a sign that those men, maybe subconsciously, see inherent inequalities in the idea of plural marriage that they themselves would not want to have to deal with if the situation was reversed.

If they would be equally supportive of the idea of living under polyandry, then that's probably a sign that they don't view polygamy as being inherently unequal for the ones sharing the spouse.

(And I know that there are plenty of men who have no desire to live polygamy, etc.).

[MormonVideoGame]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Would those men who support polygamy be as supportive if we were talking about them living polyandry?  If they wouldn't be, then that's probably a sign that those men, maybe subconsciously, see inherent inequalities in the idea of plural marriage that they themselves would not want to have to deal with if the situation was reversed.

I support polygamy, polyandry, and polyamory. I am sure many men wouldn't mind polyandry with a beutiful rich woman. 

Some cultures practice polyandry, is polyandry inherently Sexist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry_in_Tibet

 

Quote

And I know that there are plenty of men who have no desire to live polygamy

True, but most men are hypocrites see http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J398v01n03_03

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think this is a good point.  

Would those men who support polygamy be as supportive if we were talking about them living polyandry?  If they wouldn't be, then that's probably a sign that those men, maybe subconsciously, see inherent inequalities in the idea of plural marriage that they themselves would not want to have to deal with if the situation was reversed.

If they would be equally supportive of the idea of living under polyandry, then that's probably a sign that they don't view polygamy as being inherently unequal for the ones sharing the spouse.

(And I know that there are plenty of men who have no desire to live polygamy, etc.).

Count me as one who doesn't want to live polygamy or polyandry or any poly for that matter. Marriage is difficult enough with one 

[pogi]

20 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think it is sexist and hard to reconcile with the golden rule.

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think this is a good point.  

Would those men who support polygamy be as supportive if we were talking about them living polyandry?  If they wouldn't be, then that's probably a sign that those men, maybe subconsciously, see inherent inequalities in the idea of plural marriage that they themselves would not want to have to deal with if the situation was reversed.

If they would be equally supportive of the idea of living under polyandry, then that's probably a sign that they don't view polygamy as being inherently unequal for the ones sharing the spouse.

(And I know that there are plenty of men who have no desire to live polygamy, etc.).

Why is it sexist across the board Pete?  

I think perhaps we are misapplying the golden rule here.  Some people prefer to live in the cooler damp North-West, others prefer the hot dry desserts of Arizona. Some people like apples, other's like oranges better.  For some, polygyny works better for their life-style, personality, and personal preferences, while others prefer polyandry.  One doesn't have to be willing to live an alternative life-style to what they prefer in order to fulfill the golden rule or in order to avoid the label of sexist.

Quote

If they would be equally supportive of the idea of living under polyandry, then that's probably a sign that they don't view polygamy as being inherently unequal for the ones sharing the spouse.

Can men and women not have different preferences in marriage format for various reasons?  Why must we be forced to apply judgment if a person prefers one over the other?  One doesn't have to be willing to live in a polyandrous or polygynous relationship in order to show support and approval for the other.  

[thesometimesaint]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think this is a good point.  

Would those men who support polygamy be as supportive if we were talking about them living polyandry?  If they wouldn't be, then that's probably a sign that those men, maybe subconsciously, see inherent inequalities in the idea of plural marriage that they themselves would not want to have to deal with if the situation was reversed.

If they would be equally supportive of the idea of living under polyandry, then that's probably a sign that they don't view polygamy as being inherently unequal for the ones sharing the spouse.

(And I know that there are plenty of men who have no desire to live polygamy, etc.).

I'm one of those men who has no desire for more than one wife in this life. What God commands me to do in the next is up to him.

[JLHPROF]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think this is a good point.

Would those men who support polygamy be as supportive if we were talking about them living polyandry?  If they wouldn't be, then that's probably a sign that those men, maybe subconsciously, see inherent inequalities in the idea of plural marriage that they themselves would not want to have to deal with if the situation was reversed.

If they would be equally supportive of the idea of living under polyandry, then that's probably a sign that they don't view polygamy as being inherently unequal for the ones sharing the spouse.

(And I know that there are plenty of men who have no desire to live polygamy, etc.).

Whatever God commands, do it.  - Joseph Smith

 

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

Can men and women not have different preferences in marriage format for various reasons?  Why must we be forced to apply judgment if a person prefers one over the other?  One doesn't have to be willing to live in a polyandrous or polygynous relationship in order to show support and approval for the other.  

If one doesn't believe that living polygamy without authority from God is a sin, then they can show support and approval for whatever they want I suppose.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

Why is it sexist across the board Pete?  

I think perhaps we are misapplying the golden rule here.  Some people prefer to live in the cooler damp North-West, others prefer the hot dry desserts of Arizona. Some people like apples, other's like oranges better.  For some, polygyny works better for their life-style, personality, and personal preferences, while others prefer polyandry.  One doesn't have to be willing to live an alternative life-style to what they prefer in order to fulfill the golden rule or in order to avoid the label of sexist.

Can men and women not have different preferences in marriage format for various reasons?  Why must we be forced to apply judgment if a person prefers one over the other?  One doesn't have to be willing to live in a polyandrous or polygynous relationship in order to show support and approval for the other.  

Why do you want to defend it?  It's a horrible practice that doesn't benefit anyone other than the very few at the top of the polygamy pyramid

[hope_for_things]

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 read all the replies, but I wanted to respond to your OP as I like the question.  

I do think Polygamy is sexist and unequal.  I would love to see our modern church actually repudiate polygamy and decanonize the section in the D&C or make significant edits to it.  I personally don't think it will be practiced in the next life, and I reject it completely.  

From my interactions with orthodox believing family members and friends, I find that many of them don't clearly accept the concept of polygamy, especially the women.  I hear many statements that they trust that God will work it all out in the next life, but if you ask them whether they would be okay with sharing their husband in the next life with other wives, most that I talk to are uncomfortable with that idea.