The Calling of Polygamy, and disaster that always follows...

[Calm]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Yeah, that's why I added "other than the claim by Joseph Smith" 

So what is the difference with all the other commandments?  Are they not also just claims of revelations by men claiming to be prophets?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I have often wondered , if the US gov't and people had looked upon polygamy with indifference , how would polygamy in the church be organized today? Would it gradually have been phased out? Would it have become more and more restricted to the General Authorities? Would it have become an expected standard for the general membership with the resulting imbalances? Would there have come a time when the Lord commanded the practice to end?

It was fading out according to the studies I remember.  Iirc, the persecution gave it a burst of life.  I think it would have become pretty much a leader thing and as we shifted to less and less callings held for a lifetime as well as away from a greater rural culture, it would have become probably quite restricted.

[Yirgacheffe]

22 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Does disaster always follow polygamy?  Successful relationships regardless of what they constitute rarely get press because to the outsider, successful relationships are generally boring.  It is always the scandal or the bad things that get the gossip or the attention.  Polygamy no doubt is hard to live but so was the United Order.  It takes a particular person to be successful at some of these higher laws.  Perhaps the reason we don't live polygamy today is the same reason we don't live under a  United Order system.  We simply are not ready for it.

Apparently the FLDS are suffering some truly heartbreaking and serious problems stemming from polygamy.

 

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170726-the-polygamous-town-facing-genetic-disaster

[Jane_Doe]

Just now, Yirgacheffe said:

Apparently the FLDS are suffering some truly heartbreaking and serious problems stemming from polygamy.

 

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170726-the-polygamous-town-facing-genetic-disaster

Those problems are the result of inbreeding, not polygamy.  

[Yirgacheffe]

5 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Those problems are the result of inbreeding, not polygamy.  

The inbreeding is a result of polygamy.

[strappinglad]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

That's one interpretation, I don't believe a person has to assume God condoned the multiple wives of David.  

I just finished reading 2 Samuel 12:7 . It was a wild time , but it seems clear that God gave David Saul's wives. God was seriously miffed that David had had Uriah killed so as to take another wife.

I had forgotten just how bloodthirsty those times were. Mind you, we are now seeing the similar attitudes in Syria and Iraq.

Edited July 27, 2017 by strappinglad

[Jane_Doe]

3 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said:

The inbreeding is a result of polygamy.

Not at all.  Inbreeding is the result of people marrying their cousin (or 2nd cousin or whatever).  It can happen with monogamous pairings just as well.  Example, European royalty or ancient Egyptian royalty. 

[Yirgacheffe]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Not at all.  Inbreeding is the result of people marrying their cousin (or 2nd cousin or whatever).  It can happen with monogamous pairings just as well.  Example, European royalty or ancient Egyptian royalty. 

But in this case is is a direct result of polygamy, it is because of polygamy that the only people available were those that carried the recessive gene and not necessarily because of close relations.  And no in this case it's not a matter of marrying second cousins it's a matter a large part of  the gene pool carrying a  destructive recessive gene and these people can be much less closely related.   The "traditional" way of widening the gene pool is unavailable to the FLDS, no raiding and kidnapping of other "tribes" women is possible, same with recruiting people from the surrounding area or overseas where young ladies may be duped into joining the group, so the only women available are those in the group.  Among the FLDS you could marry your 4th cousin and still wind up with the same recessive gene.

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said:

But in this case is is a direct result of polygamy, it is because of polygamy that the only people available were those that carried the recessive gene and not necessarily because of close relations.  And no in this case it's not a matter of marrying second cousins it's a matter a large part of  the gene pool carrying a  destructive recessive gene and these people can be much less closely related.   The "traditional" way of widening the gene pool is unavailable to the FLDS, no raiding and kidnapping of other "tribes" women is possible, same with recruiting people from the surrounding area or overseas where young ladies may be duped into joining the group, so the only women available are those in the group.  Among the FLDS you could marry your 4th cousin and still wind up with the same recessive gene.

They closed themselves off and isolated their genetic population, and hence inbred and had issues.  

Again, not the fault of polygamy, but the fault of them isolating themselves.  The same could have happened to any other genetically isolated group.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/25/2017 at 11:15 PM, carbon dioxide said:

Does disaster always follow polygamy?  Successful relationships regardless of what they constitute rarely get press because to the outsider, successful relationships are generally boring.  It is always the scandal or the bad things that get the gossip or the attention.  Polygamy no doubt is hard to live but so was the United Order.  It takes a particular person to be successful at some of these higher laws.  Perhaps the reason we don't live polygamy today is the same reason we don't live under a  United Order system.  We simply are not ready for it.

Observe this one:  

 

[Bernard Gui]

On 7/25/2017 at 9:02 PM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

The thread on the Priesthood Ban, got turned into a discussion on polygamy, some of that was my doing. In so doing writing the  things that we said that may have confused others. So I thought it best to let the "Phristhood Ban", get their thread back. This was a thread dedicated to polygamy, can remain on track, and address it more fully. 

I will begin with a few comments and quotes, to address that even when the Lord has permitted the practice and given commandments or guidelines, few who practice it, show little self restraint. In all our Standard Works, there are stories that abound when self-restrant, and good parenting have NOT been the order of the day. 

It caused a large split within the Church, were fundamentals, live lives with dozens of wives and countless children. One man in a polygamist is now going to jail for 5 years, for having , 24 to 27 wives, and these marriages have resulted in 145 children. No man could be a Good husband, and certainly attentive father to all. If only 1/3 of those 145 are boys, they will never learn to be  a good man, an attinitive, to the rest of the 145. Also any man children in this circumstance could not carve out a 10min a day for PPI's orto just be with "Dad". This group is not the only one, many wives are neglected, barring a once a month visit. Also with the numbers it is clear that young marriage boys will be put out so that older men may marry other wives. 

One comment suggested that  "well that it was need to have more children to build the Church, and to raise up more righteous children. But as one poster pointed out, women can only bare one child a year, and that the same thing can be accomplished through monogamy. 

A note: I am not a disgruntled member, I am not an Apastate, and I am not looking for fault. I just have a the perspective of someone who for a time lived with a polygamist/ bigamist, and know first hand how dangerous this doctrine is. 

These se are my comments and questions, also included other statements that ended up in a thread of a different topic. 

Except LDS polygamy precisely fit the requirements set by the Prophet Jacob in the Book of Mormon with just the results that he expected.

Also, 19th-Century Utah was not a closed society, there were tens-of-thousands of members, not just a few hundred, there was a constant influx of new people, and not everyone was required to participate. 13 prominent male leaders alone accounted for 500 children. That had to have had an impact on the expanding Church.

To help gauge the effectiveness of their parenting, I recommend "The Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons."

Quote

The letters are didactic—even evangelical at times—as the concerned and loving father coaches, cajoles, chastises, encourages, and enjoins his attentive and admiring sons.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/letters-brigham-young-his-sons

 The practice ended when it had served its purposes. 

Edited July 27, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[sjdawg]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

To help gauge the effectiveness of their parenting, I recommend "The Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons."

 

I'm not convinced that letters can really act as a gauge of parental success.  The letters my parents wrote to me on my mission would be a very incomplete and very inaccurate reflection of their parenting that took place over the course of many years.  

Side question - Is there a record of any letters of Brigham Young to his daughters?  I believe he had at least 30 although I'm not certain of the exact count. I remain very skeptical that Brigham Young's businesses, church callings, and  many wives and children allowed him to spent sufficient quality time with each family member.

Edited July 27, 2017 by sjdawg

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

So what is the difference with all the other commandments?  Are they not also just claims of revelations by men claiming to be prophets?

I believe that all Prophets are fallible, past and present.  I have my own relationship with God, my own inspiration and the feeling of the spirit when I know something is right.  I personally believe that polygamy came from man and not from God, that it was wrong and it is still a thorn in the side of even the current church as we continue to lose active members when they learn the details regarding how Joseph and others lived it.

I recognize that some members did have a testimony of polygamy and I also believe that many good saints who were faithful and obedient really tried to live it righteously .  I don't fault them and actually have great admiration for many of them when I read their stories....and most especially for the women involved.

Edited July 27, 2017 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, sjdawg said:

I'm not convinced that letters can really act as a gauge of parental success.  The letters my parents wrote to me on my mission would be a very incomplete and very inaccurate reflection of their parenting that took place over the course of many years.  

Side question - Is there a record of any letters of Brigham Young to his daughters?  I believe he had at least 30 although I'm not certain of the exact count. I remain very skeptical that Brigham Young's businesses, church callings, and  many wives and children allowed him to spent sufficient quality time with each family member.

Dang! Did I call it or what! I knew when I recommended that collection of letters to his sons that someone would point out there isn't a similar collection for his daughters. Thank you!  I'm sure he wrote to his daughters. Perhaps it is a book you should write. Seriously. 

Our current notion of correct parenting (quality time?) cannot be used to gauge parenting in the 19th-Century American frontier. 

 

[thesometimesaint]

21 hours ago, ALarson said:

There have been numerous discussions on here regarding this.  There is no record of God specifically commanding someone to live polygamy (other than the claim by Joseph Smith).  The closest we have to a commandment, is the Levirate marriages that may have included living polygamy with a brother's wife.

There is also no record of polyandry ever being commanded by God,

Polygamy is part and parcel of the Bible.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Polygamy is part and parcel of the Bible.

I don't know if it's an essential part of the Bible, but of course, it's a part of some of the histories recorded there.  But that's not what you wanted a reference for.

[clarkgoble]

On 7/25/2017 at 11:29 PM, Thinking said:

Perhaps it's because polygamy doesn't work mathematically. It naturally leads to older men selecting young girls as wives. What then happens to the young males whose potential mates have already been selected?

The main problem was Joseph apparently thinking polygamy rather than adoption was necessary to get the sealing setup in the early church. Then the practice of polygamy not always following D&C 132's requirements. Finally some people marrying too many wives as Bill noted leading effectively to single parent houses and great hardship. Overall, even if you think Joseph was telling the truth about D&C 132 and the angel commanding him, the way it was implemented was a complete mess that frequently went against what God asked. (That's hardly a shock - lots of things the early saints tried to implement were screwed up - look at all the varieties of implementation of the law of consecration and the problems most had)

While I think the issue intrinsically comes up simply due to the issue of widowhood, sealings and life after death, polygamy in this life seems unworkable and usually leading to heartache and a dereliction of ones duties to ones children. It's likely also primarily relevant only in cases where men have died off due to war or related matters. 

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Observe this one:  

Brady's a great guy. I like him a great deal. But he'll tell you it doesn't work for most people and causes lots of stress. (Although I'll fully admit I don't bring up the issue with him nor with the kids of his I know - largely because I find the topic pretty uncomfortable) Also he's left the group in question as that old news story notes. One of his sons actually got permission from Pres. Monson to go on a mission. (Which took a lot of interviews) I don't know what number of his kids have joined the church though.

Edited July 27, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Jeanne]

Just stepped in on this for a very Jeanne comment..  So glad that I don't have a T-shirt that says.."I am a 10 cow wife"

I don't believe polygamy had anything to do with God.  Period.  Bad idea unless you really want to...and not commanded to do so. 

Edited July 27, 2017 by Jeanne

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I don't believe polygamy had anything to do with God.  Period.  Bad idea unless you really want to...not commanded.

I agree.  I have no issue with anyone wanting to live it if it's among consenting adults and is not causing harm (emotionally or physically) to any of the parties (or to anyone else).  

Edited July 27, 2017 by ALarson

[thesometimesaint]

44 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Just stepped in on this for a very Jeanne comment..  So glad that I don't have a T-shirt that says.."I am a 10 cow wife"

I don't believe polygamy had anything to do with God.  Period.  Bad idea unless you really want to...and not commanded to do so. 

Which you are free to do. However God apparently thinks otherwise.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Which you are free to do. However God apparently thinks otherwise.

I doubt that God has anything to do with whether or not people choose to live polygamy.  I think it's a human driven concept or lifestyle and I have no issue with it if no one is being harmed (emotionally or physically), forced or coerced.  I'm also not in favor of much older men marrying young girls.  

Edited July 27, 2017 by ALarson

[thesometimesaint]

57 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I doubt that God has anything to do with whether or not people choose to live polygamy.  I think it's a human driven concept or lifestyle and I have no issue with it if no one is being harmed (emotionally or physically), forced or coerced.  I'm also not in favor of much older men marrying young girls.  

Which you are free to do. However God apparently thinks otherwise.

That can apply to any marriage. We are lucky enough in this day and age where medical science is keeping more women alive through the childbirth years.

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Dang! Did I call it or what! I knew when I recommended that collection of letters to his sons that someone would point out there isn't a similar collection for his daughters. Thank you!  I'm sure he wrote to his daughters. Perhaps it is a book you should write. Seriously. 

Our current notion of correct parenting (quality time?) cannot be used to gauge parenting in the 19th-Century American frontier. 

 

Perhaps, generally speaking, his daughters were much better behaved than his sons?  

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Just stepped in on this for a very Jeanne comment..  So glad that I don't have a T-shirt that says.."I am a 10 cow wife"

I don't believe polygamy had anything to do with God.  Period.  Bad idea unless you really want to...and not commanded to do so. 

I don't think that my ancestors, without a testimony that they had been commanded by God to do so, would have practiced it.  You're free to believe that they were mistaken in their testimony, but are you absolutely certain you want to argue against my existence?