News on Plural Marriage

[Stargazer]

On 7/24/2020 at 8:55 PM, JamesBYoung said:

That's kind of a sweeping inquiry, is it not? 

Yes, it is! 

On 7/24/2020 at 8:55 PM, JamesBYoung said:

I am sharing my opinion, based on family and friend anecdotes among women relatives and friends, as you seem to be.

Yes, I understand the age thing, too.  One wife has ever been enough for friendship etc.

I like it that my wife is my best friend. I don't think I want another one. No, that's too equivocal: I don't want another best friend.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

In my life in the church I have run into exactly one woman who said that she wouldn't mind it. I am certain that even among those women of the church who say they would comply if the Lord restored the practice and they were asked to participate, they would darned well rather not participate. Who among them would be glad about it? I'm betting heavily against it.  Heck, I wouldn't want to participate.

I have met a few who said they would not mind it. Most were unmarried and of the ones who were married at least one was bisexual so she may have had other motives.

[Stargazer]

On 7/24/2020 at 3:52 AM, Calm said:

The younger me didn’t have a problem with it. I figured as long as I liked her, I could adapt to it. Older I get, the more I realize how hard it would be to do so.
 

 I also want my relationship with my husband to continue to mature and this requires us to face our difficulties and work them out. I noticed when we were first married and living by his family, when there was conflict my husband would often retreat to spend time with siblings and parents. And the conflict would be gone when he got home only to repeat the next time the same circumstances occurred. When we moved out of state, it felt like we really became a couple then. He might go for a walk, but he would be more likely to discuss issues where it was easily avoided before. I can see if there is an additional relationship he can retreat to, this might enable him to retreat more...which prevents conversation happening when it should and just draws out the difficulties, maybe for years. Just to be fair, I do my own form of retreating and he noticed once I tend to be more issue oriented after I talked to my family (who are all problem solvers, it is how we relate the most), so I am not saying he was the only one hampering our efforts for our marriage to grow. 

It would be an EXTREMELY difficult thing to do, and do right.  I think women think it is a man's dream, to get some variety in certain aspects, and honestly, some men do think along those lines. Those would be the men who should never practice plural marriage.  It is not an easy thing for a woman to share her husband with another woman (or more), but at the same time it would be a very difficult thing for a man to do, to treat more than one woman equally lovingly.  I certainly wouldn't want to try it.  Only if they make me.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/19/2019 at 2:11 PM, rpn said:

Or maybe importing chinese men who are way more plentiful than Chinese women?

Maybe an argument for polyandry in China?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/20/2019 at 10:03 AM, bluebell said:

Could this be a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah about the last days that says "And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach."?

I'm sure glad that I won't be around for that boondoggle.

[JamesBYoung]

Neither will I.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

It would be an EXTREMELY difficult thing to do, and do right.  I think women think it is a man's dream, to get some variety in certain aspects, and honestly, some men do think along those lines. Those would be the men who should never practice plural marriage.  It is not an easy thing for a woman to share her husband with another woman (or more), but at the same time it would be a very difficult thing for a man to do, to treat more than one woman equally lovingly.  I certainly wouldn't want to try it.  Only if they make me.

The romantic/sexual drive for novelty is pretty well documented. Very few people end up with someone they have known from childhood given a choice. Of course a lot of (most?) marriages in history were not choices made by the participants. In some only the man had a choice, in some neither had a choice. There were a few where only the woman had a choice but they are pretty rare.

I could see a God or Goddess having no such problems but that is due to knowledge and confidence and purity we do not have here. Here it is a hard road. Marriage in general is a hard road but I hear it is worth it.

[juliann]

On 2/19/2019 at 12:42 PM, nuclearfuels said:

Tunisia women call for polygamy

Middle East Monitor-Jan 26, 2019

 

Egypt TV debate: Polygamy as solution to Egypt's spinster crisis

Arutz Sheva-Jan 22, 2019

-

 

you may now shoot the messenger

Spinster? How can anyone take this seriously.  You will notice that this is springing up in countries that repress women which is the only system where it could possibly survive. Sort of like the 19th century.....

[juliann]

On 7/21/2020 at 8:04 AM, JamesBYoung said:

"I have no doubt but concubinage will yet be practiced in this church, but I had not thought of it in this connection. When the nations are troubled good women will come here for safety and blessing, and men will accept them as concubines." - President Lorenzo Snow

Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, April 5, 1894, v. 18, p. 70

 He obviously never envisioned a day when women didn't need men to survive.  

[juliann]

On 2/20/2019 at 10:03 AM, bluebell said:

Could this be a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah about the last days that says "And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach."?

 

Pardon the weird character inserts:

Quote

 

From Institute manual:

(13-23) Isaiah 4:1. â??Take Away Our Reproachâ?

Verse 1 of chapter four seems to continue the thought of chapter three rather than to begin a new thought. This phrase suggests that the condition mentioned in verse 1 is caused by the scarcity of men, a result of the devastation of war mentioned in Isaiah 3:25â??26. The conditions under which these women would accept this marriage (â??eat our own bread, and wear our own apparelâ?) are contrary to the Lordâ??s order of marriage (see Exodus 21:10; D&C 132:58â??61). To be unmarried and childless in ancient Israel was a disgrace (see Genesis 30:23; Luke 1:25). So terrible would conditions in those times be that women would offer to share a husband with others and expect no material support from him, if they could claim they were married to him.

http://ldsces.org/inst_manuals/ot-in-2/manualindex.asp (link accessed 2008)

 

So even the Church thinks this verse is only tied to ancient times.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

 

Pardon the weird character inserts:

So even the Church thinks this verse is only tied to ancient times.

Did I miss something?  That's not what your quote said at all.

[nuclearfuels]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

Spinster? How can anyone take this seriously.  You will notice that this is springing up in countries that repress women which is the only system where it could possibly survive. Sort of like the 19th century.....

Apparently the Egyptians are not as evolved as us 4th wave Feminists in the US, where allowing women the ability to choose the type of marriage they want is somehow repressive

[Calm]

8 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

where allowing women the ability to choose the type of marriage they want is somehow repressive

Are they actually allowing women to choose though?  If they remove the possibility of choosing something besides marriage in order to not be in poverty or have as much freedom as women are allowed, access to support systems, etc and if there are too few men, what does that really leave as a choice?  Education usually ends at puberty for women of lower economic class, which limits ability to self support.

If the other wives have no choice, but to accept their husband’s new wives, I don’t think touting polygyny in Egypt as somehow allowing women the type of marriage they choose. 
 

Interesting article about how lower income women live these days, focusing on a woman whose parents were divorced and after her mother remarried, she has to leave her home with her and live with uncles and then a stepmom who bullied her, etc. so she got married young to escape, later her husband took a second wife without asking her which she hated....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/egyptian-women-and-the-fight-for-the-right-to-work/amp

Edited August 2, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

8 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Apparently the Egyptians are not as evolved as us 4th wave Feminists in the US, where allowing women the ability to choose the type of marriage they want is somehow repressive

It was the men in Egypt pushing for polygyny as a solution in your article. It is already legal there .

Egypt has been resisting laws requiring men to inform their wives of their intent to remarry as well as to register all wives among others things to create a polygamous system that protects women more. 

https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/1/45467/Parliament’s-anti-polygamy-action-sparks-controversy-in-Egypt

Tunisia was the one where women were calling for it, meant to provide the choice of marriage for older women, but if approved according to your article, it will likely backfire on them as husbands won’t be looking for “spinsters” to marry, but younger women.

Quote

In this context, researcher of Islamic civilisation, Sami Braham, wrote that: “Unmarried women who missed a wedding opportunity believe that opening the door to polygamy will enable them to get married.” He added however that “in my estimation, and according to my knowledge of the male gender to which I belong to, the opposite will happen because the crisis will be exacerbated by men looking for younger women, unless they accept marriage as an act of charity and kindness”.

 

Edited August 2, 2020 by Calm

[The Nehor]

On 8/2/2020 at 6:39 AM, Calm said:

In this context, researcher of Islamic civilisation, Sami Braham, wrote that: “Unmarried women who missed a wedding opportunity believe that opening the door to polygamy will enable them to get married.” He added however that “in my estimation, and according to my knowledge of the male gender to which I belong to, the opposite will happen because the crisis will be exacerbated by men looking for younger women, unless they accept marriage as an act of charity and kindness”.

So, the Mark Twain approach? 

On 8/1/2020 at 6:48 PM, juliann said:

Spinster? How can anyone take this seriously.  You will notice that this is springing up in countries that repress women which is the only system where it could possibly survive. Sort of like the 19th century.....

For spinster I am hoping it is just a case of a word that is hard to translate and that was the best they can do. Spinster was not always a pejorative and used to refer to widows as much as those who never married. They tended to spin a lot of thread in the past.

I agree that Tunisia would be improved much more by feminism than by polygyny.

On 8/1/2020 at 6:54 PM, juliann said:

 He obviously never envisioned a day when women didn't need men to survive.  

It is a teaching of the Church that truly thriving requires marriage. I agree that survival should not require it. Then again the scripture is "not good for man to be alone". Is that "man" in the mankind sense or in the exclusively male sense? I can speak to the truth of it at least in the latter sense but I can only speculate on the former.

[Meadowchik]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is a teaching of the Church that truly thriving requires marriage. I agree that survival should not require it. Then again the scripture is "not good for man to be alone". Is that "man" in the mankind sense or in the exclusively male sense? I can speak to the truth of it at least in the latter sense but I can only speculate on the former.

Studies show that once women have the ability of economic independence, the benefits of marriage are not equally balanced between the sexes. At that point, marriage seems to be more beneficial for men but more detrimental for women.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Studies show that once women have the ability of economic independence, the benefits of marriage are not equally balanced between the sexes. At that point, marriage seems to be more beneficial for men but more detrimental for women.

Well, at least it gives me hope my loneliness in life is a net positive for humanity as a whole.  

[Meadowchik]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Well, at least it gives me hope my loneliness in life is a net positive for humanity as a whole.  

Silver linings and all that, eh?

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Silver linings and all that, eh?

Every silver lining requires a dark cloud.

[JamesBYoung]

On 8/4/2020 at 1:26 AM, Meadowchik said:

Studies show that once women have the ability of economic independence, the benefits of marriage are not equally balanced between the sexes. At that point, marriage seems to be more beneficial for men but more detrimental for women.

More detrimental or less beneficial?  Are they the same?

 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

More detrimental or less beneficial?  Are they the same?

 

I said more detrimental and more beneficial, which are not the same.

[JamesBYoung]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I said more detrimental and more beneficial, which are not the same.

OK. I disagree, because the which is beneficial and detrimental may differ between the sexes.

If it is limited to still more 'work' at home time while earning the same or more money as the man, a woman would find it detrimental

[Meadowchik]

On 8/10/2020 at 7:30 PM, JamesBYoung said:

OK. I disagree, because the which is beneficial and detrimental may differ between the sexes.

If it is limited to still more 'work' at home time while earning the same or more money as the man, a woman would find it detrimental

What do you disagree with exactly?

[JamesBYoung]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What do you disagree with exactly?

I explained it in the first sentence.

[marineland]

On 8/3/2020 at 10:46 AM, The Nehor said:

Then again the scripture is "not good for man to be alone". Is that "man" in the mankind sense or in the exclusively male sense?

That was applicable to Adam when he was alone in the garden.  The New Testament makes
clear that singleness is a gift of God too.