california boy Posted May 28, 2018 Posted May 28, 2018 2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: You can fill in that obvious and egregious gap with the research you are going to do, the book you are going to publish, and the tours and seminars you will give as a result. Seriously. As for the rest, my grampa used to say, "If we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs, but we don't have any eggs." Or as the current cliche goes, "It is what it is." What ifs are not reasoning. I think the responsibility is yours. You make a claim but only provided half of the equation. Having 800 children by a few men means nothing if it took 800 women to have that many children. You have to provide all the numbers to make a valid claim. 2
Calm Posted May 28, 2018 Posted May 28, 2018 (edited) Children learn a great deal by watching others, especially parents, but grandparents and other immediate family as well.**** Church leaders who dedicated so much of their lives to God's work (those were lifelong callings in ways we probably couldn't stomach...years gone as missionaries, for example) probably had many children, who seeing their parents and their 'coworkers' placing great value in their active faith, believed that dedicating their own lives in the same way was a noble choice. When called themselves as adults, many likely had the desire to fulfill those callings to the best of their ability. The parents probably also had children who rejected that choice because they did not see the same high value in it that their siblings did. There are things I have rejected that I felt cost myself and my siblings too much...I chose a husband who could teach my kids how to play instead of primarily work (work first, then play translates to all work, no play because there is always work) as my parents taught us...my kids are good at working at what they love, things like clean houses not so much, my parents would probably have had a fit if they caught us on a typical day these days (we had time to play as kids, but our parents' example was filling leisure time with study for Momor watching TV for an hour or two before bed; Dad did 'play' handball a lot, but we rarely got to see it...it boiled down to my parents didn't play with us, which I think is essentially to learn how to feel good about playing; if parents only deeply interact to problem solve, that is what kids believe they value). The adult children would also probably be more aware of the costs and perhaps even highly motivated to figure out how to minimize them for their own children, thus developing a core group of descendants who valued sacrifice, but were more capable of doing it wisely. So it is not just about numbers of children or even righteous children, but perhaps in order for the Church to develop strong enough and become stable, God needed a core of leaders knowledgeable in the demands of the committed leader's life because they saw examples in their own families...and then became examples for their children. Passing on a family skill that grew in knowledge and refinement through the generations. Beyond just desiring to serve, the children also likely learned leadership and counseling skills by watching their parents, their successes and failures; perhaps they even got to participate and work along side the adults as they grew up. In essence, their family life was an apprenticeship in Church leadership started in the crib. Wouldn't have worked out that way for all of them perhaps, but more likely to occur imo than in a nonleadership family. Such a training process would have saved a lot of trial and error in a time when the Church needed quickly a strong inner stability because of the turmoil going on outside of it. Plural marriage, in many ways, could be seen as a foundation of a leadership guild. Add in for an additional resource the instant likely extremely supportive network of extended family that plural marriage would have created where at least among leadership, everyone quickly became related by blood or marriage to everyone else (you have a few men with five wives as leaders and a number more with two wives in a town...by the time the second generation marries, instant patriarchal tribe more or less I bet). ---- ****In my family out of five kids, three of us went into engineering...I know I chose engineering because of the example of my father, the engineer (and son of a self taught engineer and brother of another engineer), and his counsel...Though I should have chosen physics (my true passion), ended up in psychology, guess I am more cerebral than my brothers. My mother love the Word, language (not the Bible, though she loved that too)...her mom had been an English teacher. Mom was an artist, but fascinated with language. One of my sisters is also an English teacher. My mom sparked my interest in psychology and religion by seeing her study all the time and talking to her about it. In my husband's family, dad was a professor/psychologist. Eldest son became medical doctor, other three sons became psychologists or therapists. Mom had nursing training (can't remember just what). One daughter became a nurse, another daughter physical therapy, two sons married nurses, one a psychologist (me). Other two daughters, I don't know what they did before marriage...but just like their mom, all the daughters have been RS Pres. And Stake Leaders. Like their dad, all the men have been Bishops or HCs. Kids become who their parents are to a great extent, though hopefully we take what we are given and draw satisfaction by putting our own personal mark on it. Edited May 28, 2018 by Calm 2
JulieM Posted May 28, 2018 Posted May 28, 2018 8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: You can fill in that obvious and egregious gap with the research you are going to do, the book you are going to publish, and the tours and seminars you will give as a result. Seriously. No, you are the one who continues to forget the women and only name these same 20 men. How many women made up the group who were the mothers of the 800 children you call righteous seed? What were their names? 1
JulieM Posted May 28, 2018 Posted May 28, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: We can guess and surmise and presume all day and night. It leads nowhere. True and that’s what you’re doing. You have no idea how many of those 800 children remained in the church or how many children these mothers would have had if they’d been in monogamous marriages. Or do believe there were no other good men other than those 20? There quite possibly would have been a much greater number of righteous seed born if these women hadn’t been in polygamous marriages where whey shared their husband with many other wives. There would have also most likely been a father who was more present in the home. Or do you believe these women weren’t strong enough to raise righteous seed unless their husbands were one of the 20 you named? Edited May 28, 2018 by JulieM 2
ALarson Posted May 28, 2018 Posted May 28, 2018 (edited) On 5/26/2018 at 11:24 PM, Bernard Gui said: Brigham Young 56 children John Taylor 34 Lorenzo Snow 42 Heber Kimball 66 Orson Pratt 45 Joseph F. Smith 45 William Clayton 42 Orson Hyde 32 Parley Pratt 30 Ezra T. Benson 35 George Q. Cannon 32 Wilford Woodruff 34 George A. Smith 20 Daniel H. Wells 40 Charles C. Rich 51 Amasa M. Lyman 38 Franklin D. Richards 29 Edwin D. Woolley 26 Erastus Snow 37 Newell Whitney 12 TOTAL 746 I've seen you post about this information before on here, Bernard. I think it's in pretty poor taste to not include the number of women involved who were the wives and the Mothers of all these children you refer to as righteous seed. Why do you always leave the women out of the equation? As others have posted, there are more children born in societies that are not polygamous. So, IMO, your reasoning here fails. There's more to being a Father than just providing the seed and counting up the numbers. This chart is pointless unless you know how many children stayed righteous (and also you should quit leaving the women nameless and include their numbers too) Edited May 28, 2018 by ALarson 1
ALarson Posted May 28, 2018 Posted May 28, 2018 16 hours ago, JulieM said: Also, I guess we can assume that you believe Joseph consummated his plural marriages? (If polygamy is only allowed to raise righteous seed or to have children.) I didn't see that this was answered. Bernard, what is your belief regarding this?
Bernard Gui Posted May 28, 2018 Author Posted May 28, 2018 2 hours ago, ALarson said: I've seen you post about this information before on here, Bernard. I think it's in pretty poor taste to not include the number of women involved who were the wives and the Mothers of all these children you refer to as righteous seed. Why do you always leave the women out of the equation? Poor taste? Because that isn’t the topic and this is just another detail. You are free to start a new topic and I will be more than happy to participate. 1
Bernard Gui Posted May 28, 2018 Author Posted May 28, 2018 8 hours ago, california boy said: I think the responsibility is yours. You make a claim but only provided half of the equation. Having 800 children by a few men means nothing if it took 800 women to have that many children. You have to provide all the numbers to make a valid claim. It would be great if you started a new thread about mothers in polygamy. I would love to participate. 1
Bernard Gui Posted May 28, 2018 Author Posted May 28, 2018 2 hours ago, JulieM said: True and that’s what you’re doing. You have no idea how many of those 800 children remained in the church or how many children these mothers would have had if they’d been in monogamous marriages. Or do believe there were no other good men other than those 20? There quite possibly would have been a much greater number of righteous seed born if these women hadn’t been in polygamous marriages where whey shared their husband with many other wives. There would have also most likely been a father who was more present in the home. Or do you believe these women weren’t strong enough to raise righteous seed unless their husbands were one of the 20 you named? Your questions are a tad condescending and insulting and not pertinent to this discussion and are approaching badgering. Why not start a new thread where that can be discussed rather than further derail this one? You could do some research to kick off the discussion. I would be happy to participate. In the meantime, what changed when our soccer player went from hero to villain when he announced he planned to marry the women he was living with? 2
Exiled Posted May 28, 2018 Posted May 28, 2018 18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I’m not sure you understand what I have been saying or asking. It’s certainly not what you have described here. Simply put, if the new definition of marriage is a relationship between consenting adults, what limits, if any, can be enforced and on what are they based? I was going off of the original post where you intimated that society is going down some slippery slope regarding marriage relations because the brazilian soccer star ronaldinho wants to marry two women. I haven't read all of your comments. However, to answer your current question, in the United States, marriage will still be governed by state law. Incest is still prohibited as well as polygamy, bigamy, and polyandry. So, I don't think states define marriage as any relationship between consenting adults. The Supreme Court steps in when it views state law as violating some personal liberty interest as in abortion or same sex marriage. So, state law stops your march in the U.S. However, voters in individual states could still change the laws at any time and values inform voters decisions in this area. Are you worried that since more and more people are leaving religion, that the march will continue to somewhere you don't like?
Bernard Gui Posted May 28, 2018 Author Posted May 28, 2018 8 hours ago, california boy said: I think the responsibility is yours. You make a claim but only provided half of the equation. Having 800 children by a few men means nothing if it took 800 women to have that many children. You have to provide all the numbers to make a valid claim. I don’t see it that way in the context of this discussion, but you are free to disagree.
Bernard Gui Posted May 28, 2018 Author Posted May 28, 2018 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Exiled said: I was going off of the original post where you intimated that society is going down some slippery slope regarding marriage relations because the brazilian soccer star ronaldinho wants to marry two women. I haven't read all of your comments. However, to answer your current question, in the United States, marriage will still be governed by state law. Incest is still prohibited as well as polygamy, bigamy, and polyandry. So, I don't think states define marriage as any relationship between consenting adults. The Supreme Court steps in when it views state law as violating some personal liberty interest as in abortion or same sex marriage. So, state law stops your march in the U.S. However, voters in individual states could still change the laws at any time and values inform voters decisions in this area. Are you worried that since more and more people are leaving religion, that the march will continue to somewhere you don't like? No, that does not worry me.Thanks for addressing the issue with some interesting points. Yes, I believe there is potential for slippery slope developments, but how that would shake out depends on many things, of course. As this discussion has developed, I used the soccer player example to direct it towards the question I have repeated numerous times and which is my primary interest. I would like to discuss that rather than the merits or demerits of Brigham, Joseph, and Mormon plural marriage. I’m to blame for letting the derailers do what they do. Our soccer player has the world at his feet, but when he announces he plans to marry his two, maybe three, live-in girlfriends, the world goes for his throat...at least according to the news report. Calm made reference to a residue of a deep-seated animus towards the “barbaric” nature of polygamy, if I understand her correctly. What do you think? Edited May 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui
california boy Posted May 28, 2018 Posted May 28, 2018 51 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: It would be great if you started a new thread about mothers in polygamy. I would love to participate. Wait. You believe it inappropriate to talk about the wives of these polygamist marriages and their role in raising up righteous seed in a thread about the legitimacy of polygamy based on raising righteous seed? Especially when you are the one that introduced the fathers of these marriages and how many children they fathered Now it is inappropriate to talk about what role the wives played? Do you even realize how this makes you sound?
Exiled Posted May 28, 2018 Posted May 28, 2018 34 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: No, that does not worry me.Thanks for addressing the issue with some interesting points. Yes, I believe there is potential for slippery slope developments, but how that would shake out depends on many things, of course. As this discussion has developed, I used the soccer player example to direct it towards the question I have repeated numerous times and which is my primary interest. I would like to discuss that rather than the merits or demerits of Brigham, Joseph, and Mormon plural marriage. I’m to blame for letting the derailers do what they do. Our soccer player has the world at his feet, but when he announces he plans to marry his two, maybe three, live-in girlfriends, the world goes for his throat...at least according to the news report. Calm made reference to a residue of a deep-seated animus towards the “barbaric” nature of polygamy, if I understand her correctly. What do you think? I think bigamy with one man and several women partners is an inherently unfair system. Women should be treated as equals and not property. So, my guess is that ronaldinho is getting flack for the reasons you interpret Calm to have made. Society is headed toward equal treatment among the sexes and so when ronaldinho comes along proclaiming his intentions to have his marriages, the world sees it as a huge step back and rightfully so.
JAHS Posted May 28, 2018 Posted May 28, 2018 12 hours ago, jpv said: 12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Thank you, JAHS. At last someone addresses the OP. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I think you may be correct. There is not a great public outcry yet, and maybe never will be. On the other hand, the power of social media and lawsuits to alter the course very quickly cannot be underestimated. Time will tell. Back to the OP, why do you think living with, sleeping with, and having children with multiple women to whom one is not married is ok in many quarters, but it becomes reprehensible only when marriage enters the picture? Nobody is interested in answering your question it seems. I think more people would be interested if it were not a holiday weekend. I think Calm sort of said this but I think many people deep down want to preserve the traditional institution of marriage of one man to one woman. Also the people who are OK with living and sleeping and having children without marriage may not be the same people who think plural marriage is reprehensible. And the people who think it is reprehensible may also think it's not OK for people to sleep around and have children without marriage.
JulieM Posted May 28, 2018 Posted May 28, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: Your questions are a tad condescending and insulting and not pertinent to this discussion and are approaching badgering. Why not start a new thread where that can be discussed rather than further derail this one? You could do some research to kick off the discussion. I would be happy to participate. You are the one who posted the chart of the 20 men who had the 800 children. You brought it into the discussion after your posts on Jacob and stating the purpose of polygamy was to raise righteous seed. But bringing all the wives and mothers of these 20 men and 800 children is “not pertinent to this discussion”? Why? Edited May 28, 2018 by JulieM 1
Eek! Posted May 28, 2018 Posted May 28, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: Our soccer player has the world at his feet, but when he announces he plans to marry his two, maybe three, live-in girlfriends, the world goes for his throat... Not that I'm a qualified spokesman for "the world", but here's my guess: Polygamy threatens existing marriages. Polygamy would open up the possibility of other partners entering existing marriages, and would lower the barriers to leaving a marriage, because now theoretically everybody who is married is in play again, not just the single people. So theoretically everybody can look around and go "hmmm... that'd be nice!" For instance, Mrs. Eek! could seriously contemplate that handsome cowboy up the road, whether by joining his marriage or him joining ours. Which brings up another point: Most of us would probably not be too excited about being on the sharing end of the relationship. But people who are willing to share the person they love would be more likely to end up married. * * * * My own investigation of the subject years ago led me to several unorthodox conclusions, one of which is this: Within the context of the next life, unless polygamy (polygyny and/or polyandry) is a better deal for every single person affected by it, it fails. I cannot imagine God creating a Heaven (let alone a highest Heaven) that imposes eternal deprivation and sacrifice on some for the benefit of the others. Polygamy as practiced in the Utah Valley era does not pass this test. So if there is something "like" polygamy in Heaven, I do not think it is the same thing as Utah Valley era polygamy. Edited May 28, 2018 by Eek! 1
Bernard Gui Posted May 28, 2018 Author Posted May 28, 2018 38 minutes ago, Eek! said: Not that I'm a qualified spokesman for "the world", but here's my guess: Polygamy threatens existing marriages. Polygamy would open up the possibility of other partners entering existing marriages, and would lower the barriers to leaving a marriage, because now theoretically everybody who is married is in play again, not just the single people. So theoretically everybody can look around and go "hmmm... that'd be nice!" For instance, Mrs. Eek! could seriously contemplate that handsome cowboy up the road, whether by joining his marriage or him joining ours. Which brings up another point: Most of us would probably not be too excited about being on the sharing end of the relationship. But people who are willing to share the person they love would be more likely to end up married. * * * * My own investigation of the subject years ago led me to several unorthodox conclusions, one of which is this: Within the context of the next life, unless polygamy (polygyny and/or polyandry) is a better deal for every single person affected by it, it fails. I cannot imagine God creating a Heaven (let alone a highest Heaven) that imposes eternal deprivation and sacrifice on some for the benefit of the others. Polygamy as practiced in the Utah Valley era does not pass this test. So if there is something "like" polygamy in Heaven, I do not think it is the same thing as Utah Valley era polygamy. Thanks for the thoughtful response. Do you see a distinction between the suggested threats posed by plural marriage and those of plural live-ins? I suppose that the grittiness and hardship of earthly plural marriage is not a foretaste of what relationships will be like in eternity. A loving, just, and merciful God will reward all according to our works and desires. I would keep an eye on that cowboy. 1
Bernard Gui Posted May 28, 2018 Author Posted May 28, 2018 1 hour ago, JulieM said: You are the one who posted the chart of the 20 men who had the 800 children. You brought it into the discussion after your posts on Jacob and stating the purpose of polygamy was to raise righteous seed. But bringing all the wives and mothers of these 20 men and 800 children is “not pertinent to this discussion”? Why? Because, as I have previously explained, my intent in this discussion has never been to promote or defend polygamy. Rather it has been to explore why the animus towards polygamists (defined as marriage to multiple wives) while single men living with multiple women and often fathering multiple children is generally accepted and in many cases celebrated. Mea culpa for allowing the derailing to progress as it has. I have tried to get it back on track and thank those who have responded in that way. 1
Bernard Gui Posted May 28, 2018 Author Posted May 28, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, JAHS said: I think more people would be interested if it were not a holiday weekend. I think Calm sort of said this but I think many people deep down want to preserve the traditional institution of marriage of one man to one woman. Also the people who are OK with living and sleeping and having children without marriage may not be the same people who think plural marriage is reprehensible. And the people who think it is reprehensible may also think it's not OK for people to sleep around and have children without marriage. Interesting thoughts. Have you noticed any changes in these patterns you have identified? Observations from another news source.... Quote Former Brazilian soccer player Ronaldinho plans to marry two women at a wedding ceremony in August to form a rare three-person civil union, the Rio de Janeiro newspaper O Dia reported on Thursday. .... Ronaldinho's two fiancees, Priscilla Coelho and Beatriz Souza, have been living with the soccer star at his Rio de Janeiro mansion since December, according to O Dia. Ronaldinho, who has told Brazilian media outlets he is "adept" at polygamy, started dating Coelho first around 2013 before meeting Souza in 2016. Bigamy is illegal in Brazil, and is punishable by up to six years in prison. But a wedding ceremony to two women — one that wouldn't count as two official marriages — presents a different case. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/soccer/2018/05/24/ronaldinho-marry-two-women/641517002/ Seems a bit convoluted. How does one marry two women and create a common law union? Why would bigamy be prosecutable, but co-habiting with or having some kind of different arrangement with the ladies is not? It seems odd to me and I cannot think of an explanation. Edited May 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui
Eek! Posted May 28, 2018 Posted May 28, 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Do you see a distinction between the suggested threats posed by plural marriage and those of plural live-ins? For people who care about societal (and/or religious) values, which includes most people who are married or who want to be married, yes. The one would have society's official stamp of approval, the other not. It certainly made a difference in the Utah Valley era. I'm not saying that legalizing polygamy is necessarily the wrong thing to do; imo there are arguments on both sides. I was trying to answer your question as to why "the world" went for Ronaldinho's throat. Edited May 28, 2018 by Eek!
JAHS Posted May 28, 2018 Posted May 28, 2018 7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Interesting thoughts. Have you noticed any changes in these patterns you have identified? Observations from another news source.... Seems a bit convoluted. Why would bigamy be prosecutable, but co-habiting with or having some kind of different arrangement with the ladies is not? It seems odd to me and I cannot think of an explanation. Bigamy can be proven by evidence of a marriage license or some kind of document saying they are married or witnesses that saw them get married. People just living together might treat it as a marriage but can always deny that it is a marriage because of the lack of a document or witnesses. Cohabitation is also illegal in some countries but harder to prosecute than bigamy.
Bernard Gui Posted May 28, 2018 Author Posted May 28, 2018 8 minutes ago, Eek! said: For people who care about societal (and/or religious) values, which includes most people who are married or who want to be married, yes. The one would have society's official stamp of approval, the other not. It certainly made a difference in the Utah Valley era. I'm not saying that legalizing polygamy is necessarily the wrong thing to do; imo there are arguments on both sides. I was trying to answer your question as to why "the world" went for Ronaldinho's throat. Here’s a partial explanation, but I’m still scratching my head... Quote If Ronaldinho ever wants to go through with the wedding, he still could. Bigamy and polygamy are illegal in Brazil, but Ronaldinho’s case is a little different. Marrying one woman and then marrying another woman without a divorce is illegal, but marrying both at the same time in a single ceremony is not. That’s considered a three-person civil union, and they do exist in Brazil. The first one, between two women and a man, was recognized in 2012. Another was recognized in 2015, between three women who intended to raise a child together. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/former-brazilian-soccer-star-ronaldinho-will-marry-two-women-time-203141296.html
Bernard Gui Posted May 28, 2018 Author Posted May 28, 2018 1 minute ago, JAHS said: Bigamy can be proven by evidence of a marriage license or some kind of document saying they are married or witnesses that saw them get married. People just living together might treat it as a marriage but can always deny that it is a marriage because of the lack of a document or witnesses. Cohabitation is also illegal in some countries but harder to prosecute than bigamy. Thanks for the explanation. Do you know why? Is this just a relic of out-dated social mores?
Jeanne Posted May 28, 2018 Posted May 28, 2018 14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I have repeatedly said it was difficult and required great faith, hardship, and sacrifice from all. All means all. That many of their children became Church leaders even down to our time is a huge testament to the faith, sacrifice, goodness, and dedication of the mothers. Did I leave out any complementary words? There probably aren't enough to describe what they did. I am certain their reward will be great. Well.I hope so.
Recommended Posts