APA on Consensual Nonmonogamy spin-off thread: Mormon Polygamy

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Joseph Smith, speaking of the early Saints, described them as "the best people under the heavens."

They sacrificed and consecrated much.  And the idea of polygamy was, I think, much more repellant to them given their milieu.  And yet they accepted it and lived it, with varying degrees of success.

I dunno.  Perhaps there really isn't much value in comparing one era's folks against another era's folks.

That's not the same as living it well. I certainly agree that it was a huge trial to the people and meant that those who came west - at least initially - were deeply devoted. That's not what I was addressing though. I wasn't talking about the willingness to practice it but the practical way they practiced it. 

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And the biggest schism in decades has centered on an obscure policy that had de minimis actual effect on anyone.  And then thousands upon thousands have resigned their membership over it.

Are we, in the aggregate, more "fairweather" than our 19th century predecessors?  I'm concerned that we might be.

I'd disagree it doesn't effect anyone - but people's views of ethics isn't necessarily based upon how it affects them but whether they see it as wrong. I'd say though that comparing the Church after Joseph to the policy on gays shows just how minor the latter is on the Church. Yes it's the biggest apostasy since polygamy ended, but it's frankly tiny overall. We're not seeing even 10% of the Church leaving let alone more than half. Further it's wrapped up in the move to secularism more broadly.

Edited July 19, 2019 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What references to you have that polyandry "was commanded.  And practiced 'as a part of His gospel'"?

Zina appears to have considered it a commandment and later in life even indicates she knew of it prior to Joseph introducing it. (Despite marrying Henry rather than Joseph initially) How much weight one gives to such things is of course not clear. But it certainly mattered to them.

Some also see passages in D&C 132 like verse 51 as potentially referring to polandry. (Some historians see that verse as an indication that Joseph offered Emma a chance to marry someone else - possibly William Law) At best though it's unclear there.

As for being part of the gospel, I think polandry is entailed whenever any woman remarries after being widowed. We typically make a distinction between marriage while alive or dead, but from a gospel perspective that's a completely artificial distinction. Levirate marriage commanded in the second temple period and raised to Jesus pretty much presupposes a type of polandry even if a limited one.

Edited July 19, 2019 by clarkgoble

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

So is the "if."

Yes.  But the "if" cannot, in any reasonable sense, be construed to be construed to mean "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people {but don't worry, I will never, ever actually command my people to practice polygamy - I only said 'if' in a purely hypothetical sense}," as this would negate the second part of the verse ("otherwise they shall hearken unto these things").

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think Jacob is a poor source to appeal to there.

It's one of the plainer references to authorized polygamy.  I have always taken this as a given, so I'm surprised at your comment.  But reasonable minds...

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

We don't know what form Genesis took on the brass plates (my guess is that it was fairly different) but I suspect Jacob is referring to something on the brass plates that's not explicit in Genesis.

I think the context does not support your interpretation (that Jacob was paraphrasing something from Genesis).  Jacob is prophetically declaring "the word of the Lord" in verses 27-33, as follows:

Quote

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

Verse 31 references both Jerusalem (very much a post-Genesis location) and also "all the lands of my people ... {and} the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem."

Moreover, verse 33 speaks of "commit{ting} whoredoms, like unto them of old," which means these verses are retrospective (and not prospective, if Jacob was simply quoting Genesis).

I don't think Jacob was simply "referring to something in the plates."  He begins and ends these verses with "saith the Lord" declarations.  And he attributes to God specific treatment of the Nephites ("the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem").

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

For example the major polygamous relationship is Hagar but in Genesis it's Sarai who tells Abraham to have children by her. Then Sarai is jealous and mad and beats Hagar. It's actually a pretty horrific narrative. I wonder if the version on the brass plates was different.

Why would Brass Plates' recitation of the story of Sarai include references to Jerusalem?  Or the female Nephites?

I think I am misunderstanding your point.  Could you clarify?

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't know. All we really have relative to polygamy is D&C 132 which is much, much later and then memories of typically the women.

I think we have quite a bit of data about 19th century Latter-day Saint polygamy.

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Was Joseph commanded in who to approach or was it left to his own wisdom and in that case poor thinking?

Plenty of the participants in polygamy testified as to their own personal revelation on the subject.  And some of the most ardent supporters of polygamy were women, including many who participated in it well after Joseph was killed.

I'm not saying that Joseph Smith didn't make mistakes in implementing the practice.  Sure he did.  But the discussion cannot be limited to just what Joseph Smith experienced about it.

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think we can say given the public data. I think Todd Compton makes a compelling argument that Joseph's practice of polygamy was wrapped up in dynastic marriages -- thus why not all of them were consumated and why he was fine with polyandry in cases like Zina Huntington.

I have become increasingly persuaded on the merits of that idea.  

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think it clear Brigham Young thought polyandry  was a mistake and he made everyone divorce their husbands. (This was particularly tragic in the case of Zina IMO) Later on the plains Brigham has the vision about adoption with Joseph telling him about it. While it's not initially practiced, that comes to replace the conception of dynastic marriages and tends to be how we think of it today. But of course if dynastic marriages were a mistake, why doesn't God tell him that? That suggests I think that there's more here than merely an early misunderstanding about how sealing lines function. What that is isn't clear to me though.

Yes, plenty of particulars to suss out.

But the overarching concept - the polygamy was authorized/mandated by God - seems rather well substantiated in the scriptures.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Zina appears to have considered it a commandment and later in life even indicates she knew of it prior to Joseph introducing it. (Despite marrying Henry rather than Joseph initially) How much weight one gives to such things is of course not clear. But it certainly mattered to them.

Possibly.  Her story is a fascinating one and she was a very faithful woman, IMO.  I find much of her story to be heartbreaking though....

But that does not fulfill the CFR (issued to smac with no response as of yet....) as far as there being a record of polyandry being commanded by God or that it was a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ:

Quote

 

 ALarson said:

If polyandry was never commanded or practiced as a part of His gospel, what was there to restore?

 

Quote

 

smac97 said:

It was commanded.  And practiced "as a part of His gospel."

 

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But the overarching concept - the polygamy was authorized/mandated by God - seems rather well substantiated in the scriptures.

Not at all, IMO.  Not even close.  

But keep saying it and maybe it'll be true    (Hey....I do understand why you feel you have to believe it came from God...)

Polygamy may have been allowed at times or practiced at times....but "mandated by God"?  I haven't seen evidence or record of this at all (unless you source Joseph Smith....).

Edited July 19, 2019 by ALarson

[USU78]

I just had something hit me.  This from Jacob:

Quote

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

appears to be about more than just polygyny.  Concubinage (פִּילֶגֶשׁ) is a form of sexual slavery, often employed in order to allow the man to have more children.  Bilhah, Zilpah, and Hagar share this status.  Hagar's son, however, did not share status with Sarah's son, yet Hagar was freed from slavery by Sarah after Isaac's birth, and there's no question that Ishmael was a free man.  The Torah plainly permits it, and appears to presume that female slaves will be treated as the sexual property of their captors.  Num 31; Deut 21:14.  There were some rights in the concubine to decent treatment, however.

Yet Jacob says that men should not have any concubines at all.  He doesn't specify whether this means no female slaves at all (since the Torah permits and seems to presume sexual congress between master and nubile female slave), or just prohibits sex with them.  Given human behavior, I suspect that he meant no female slaves at all, and they should be freed period, as Moses commanded in Num 31.

So slavery among the Nephites, per Jacob, was, if permitted at all, regulated.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

But the overarching concept - the polygamy was authorized/mandated by God - seems rather well substantiated in the scriptures.

Not at all, IMO.  Not even close.  

Well, reasonable minds can disagree.

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But keep saying it and maybe it'll be true    (Hey....I do understand why you feel you have to believe it came from God...)

And I think I understand why you have a contrary view.  But for the scriptures I have cited, I would probably agree with you.  

But the scriptures are there.  They mean something.

We still have a vigorous disagreement about the reference to proxy baptism in 1 Cor. 15:29.  I'm okay with that disagreement, too, even though the proper exegesis of it seems fairly clear.

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Polygamy may have been allowed at times or practiced at times....but "mandated by God"? 

Yep.  I'd be interested in your exegesis of Jacob 2.  I've already provided mine.

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I haven't seen evidence or record of this at all (unless you source Joseph Smith....).

A mighty big "unless."

Nathan in the OT.  Jacob in the BOM.  Joseph Smith in D&C 132.  Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Moses.  Differentiated (which is to say, authorized) polygamy practiced by David, in contrast with his "whoredoms."

Thanks,

-Smac

[clarkgoble]

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Possibly.  Her story is a fascinating one and she was a very faithful woman, IMO.  I find much of her story to be heartbreaking though....

But that does not fulfill the CFR (issued to smac with no response as of yet....) as far as there being a record of polyandry being commanded by God or that it was a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ:

Why doesn't Zina saying it was commanded count as a record or are you only wanting "official" records? Could you clarify?

Were it me responding I'd say that the Levirate law combined with a conception of life after death entails polyandry. But I can certainly understand those who argue for a difference.

However polygamy is part of the Law of Moses, at least as understood at the time the Torah was compiled. So you have Deut 21:15 presuming it and Ex 21:10. One might distinguish between what's allowed by the law and what is mandated of every person under the law. Certainly polygamy isn't mandated under the law.

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, reasonable minds can disagree.

And I think I understand why you have a contrary view.  But for the scriptures I have cited, I would probably agree with you.  

But the scriptures are there.  They mean something.

We still have a vigorous disagreement about the reference to proxy baptism in 1 Cor. 15:29.  I'm okay with that disagreement, too, even though the proper exegesis of it seems fairly clear.

Yep.  I'd be interested in your exegesis of Jacob 2.  I've already provided mine.

A mighty big "unless."

Nathan in the OT.  Jacob in the BOM.  Joseph Smith in D&C 132.  Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Moses.  Differentiated (which is to say, authorized) polygamy practiced by David, in contrast with his "whoredoms."

Thanks,

-Smac

That's not commanded.  I'll give you that it was "allowed" at times.

I understand you believe that polygamy was commanded by God.  We can disagree on that as I've seen no evidence or record of this taking place prior to when Joseph made these claims.

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Why doesn't Zina saying it was commanded count as a record or are you only wanting "official" records?

I'm not sure she believed that polyandry was something commanded in order to fully restore the gospel.  I'm sure she believed in the principle (polygamy or plural marriage) and believed it came from God.  She must have believed polyandry was allowed at times....but probably not necessary to restore the principle.  That's just my opinion....

But my conversation with smac was referring to prior to when Joseph made the claim that polygamy was commanded and that it needed to be restored.   He claims that polyandry was also commanded and a necessary part of the gospel (unless I'm misunderstanding him).   

As far as I know, there is no record of anyone living polyandry in the Bible (scripture) or it being a necessary part of restoring the gospel of Jesus Christ.  We don't even have any references from Joseph regarding that (iirc).

ETA:

I'm just going to release smac from the CFR....it's not worth pushing it and I actually know he doesn't have the references.  However, I was interested to see what he had or what had led him to believe that.

Edited July 19, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's not commanded.  I'll give you that it was "allowed" at times.

So the correct rendering of Jacob 2:30 should be somethign like "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will {allow} my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things"?

I'll stick with the text as is, thanks (as I do with people who try to argue that the reference proxy baptism in 1 Cor. 15:29 is not a reference to proxy baptism).  Your proposed interpolation is, in my view, not justified.

Quote

I understand you believe that polygamy was commanded by God. 

And I get that you are resorting to eisegesis, rather than exegesis, of the scriptural text.

Quote

We can disagree on that as I've seen no evidence or record of this taking place prior to when Joseph made these claims.

Nathan and Jacob.

Still waiting for your exegesis of Jacob 2:30. Again, would you be willing to finish the thought?

"For  if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up  seed unto me, I will command my people {to __________________________}; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

How do you fill in the blank?  "Command my people" to do what?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 19, 2019 by smac97

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So the correct rendering of Jacob 2:30 should be somethign like "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will {allow} my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things"?

LOL.  No....but you still have the pesky "if I will" phrase in there qualifying it. 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And I get that you are resorting to eisegesis, rather than exegesis, of the scriptural text.

LOL again.  I think that's precisely what you are doing here (and I do understand your need to do so).  

 

I think it's best if we just agree to disagree.  As far as I've seen, you have no references stating polygamy was commanded as part of Christ's teachings or that it was necessary to live in order to restore the fullness of the gospel. 

(And, I'm also releasing you from the CFR regarding your claims on polyandry.)

 

[MustardSeed]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

LOL.  No....but you still have the pesky "if I will" phrase in there qualifying it. 

LOL again.  I think that's precisely what you are doing here (and I do understand your need to do so).  

 

I think it's best if we just agree to disagree.  As far as I've seen, you have no references stating polygamy was commanded as part of Christ's teachings or that it was necessary to live in order to restore the fullness of the gospel. 

(And, I'm also releasing you from the CFR regarding your claims on polyandry.)

 

For what it’s worth- I believe the same way as ALarson on this subject. 

I acknowlege this is a more flex view of The Gospel but it’s the only way things make any bit of sense to me.  

Peace and allowance for other views. 

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

So the correct rendering of Jacob 2:30 should be somethign like "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will {allow} my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things"?

LOL.  No....but you still have the pesky "if I will" phrase in there qualifying it. 

I don't see anything "pesky" about the qualifier.  Indeed, that qualification is central to Jacob's point.

The only potential problem, I think, is your apparent reliance on that qualifier to utterly undermine Jacob's point.  As I said here: The "if" cannot, in any reasonable sense, be construed to be construed to mean "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people {but don't worry, I will never, ever actually command my people to practice polygamy - I only said 'if' in a purely hypothetical sense}," as this would negate the second part of the verse ("otherwise they shall hearken unto these things").

Jacob 2:30 posits that the default rule is "no polygamy," with the caveat that God will sometimes impose an exception to this rule.  I think that's the only reasonable way to construe that verse.

Quote

Quote

And I get that you are resorting to eisegesis, rather than exegesis, of the scriptural text.

LOL again.  I think that's precisely what you are doing here (and I do understand your need to do so).  

One of us is ignoring the text.  It ain't me, so that leaves . . . 

Quote

I think it's best if we just agree to disagree.  As far as I've seen, you have no references stating polygamy was commanded as part of Christ's teachings or that it was necessary to live in order to restore the fullness of the gospel. 

Wow!  You really added a lot of further conditions there.

I am positing that God has, at times, commanded polygamy.  Based on Jacob 2:30, 2 Samuel 12:7-8, D&C 132, and oodles of Latter-day Saint historical references to polygamy as a commandment.

You apparently disagree.  You have repeatedly refused to provide an exegesis of Jacob 2:30, or otherwise provide a meaningful argument in support of your assertion above.  And that's is your prerogative.  But you'll understand why your unsubstantiated and conclusory because-I-say-so isn't very persuasive to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 19, 2019 by smac97

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Wow!  You really added a lot of further conditions there.

Not at all.  It's what we've been discussing all along, isn't it?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72054-apa-on-consensual-nonmonogamy-spin-off-thread-mormon-polygamy/?do=findComment&comment=1209917367

Or, do you believe that polygamy was not a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ? 

If you don't hold that belief, then why do you believe it was necessary or an essential principle in order to restore the fullness of the gospel in the latter days?

Edited July 19, 2019 by ALarson

[Glenn101]

15 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

Interesting. So we either have the commandment of polygamy being a “truth nugget” that’s made its way into nearly every culture and religion or it’s a perversion of the monogamous family that has gotten popular throughout history. I think it might be a little of both since Satan rarely creates his own ideas and just rips off true principles. Maybe polygamy is okay but only if you 1) can truly love and take care of the other wives and 2) are given those wives by revelation from the Lord. 

However, dozens to hundreds of concubines/wives used purely for sex or child bearing and then essentially neglected of affection, is probably not approved.

Who knows honestly? This debate has been going on from the beginning of this dispensation and I would imagine has been going on a lot longer then even that.

 

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

This is an important point often neglected in judging polygamy of the era. I don't think many from that era (Mormon or gentile) dealt with marriage or parenthood particularly well. Especially in the post-war era romance and love are seen as the key constituents of marriage. While it's wrong to say such things were absent from the 19th century, they certainly weren't dominant. Which isn't to deny love in marriages just that marriage had strong practical reasons rather than how we see it today where most of our immediate needs are taken care of.

That said though, polygamy made existing structures worse in many ways. Even if it was a test to see if people could live out of love rather than lust, and to provide families for widows, in practice it simply didn't function that way usually. (Which isn't to deny that occasionally it did) I frequently wonder if half the condemnations from the Lord we got in the early Utah period were due to living the principle so poorly - although some of that I also attribute to the late Nauvoo period.

It is evident to me from what I have read about polygamy, actually, polygyny in the case of the Church, is a principle that takes a very high degree of righteousness to live properly. It's history in Biblical times shows just how difficult it is. Look at Jacob/Israel, who is held in such high esteem by God and note his preference for his first love and the problems and heart ache that it caused. There is no wonder that a lot of women who have read those stories have such a difficult time with this principle.

But I think that stemelbow's comparison is inapt. In a non monogamous relationship with multiple partners of both sexes, relationships are really ambiguous, undefined, and children would seemingly be incidental and maybe accidental results of such relationships. The major focus of such an arrangement would be on the adults who engaged in the arrangement, their gratification, their relationships, etc. with any children seemingly being an afterthought. Such children probably would know who their mothers would be, but knowing who their father is would be problematic as it could be any of the men so involved. Add in the possibility/probability that people would move into and out of those arrangements with the children probably going with the mother, to be introduced to a new set of men etc.

Polygamy, on the other, hand, as attempted to be practiced by members of the Church, was/is focused on the family unit. The children know who their mother and their father is. I would think that a polygamous unit would be more stable than a polyamorous situation. But I do not have the statistics to back me up on this. There are several polyamory advocates who write positive articles in Psychology today, but they seem to focus on the ones that are the self reported success stories.

There are a couple of things though that polygamy and polyamory have in common to have any chance of success. A lack of jealousy and good relationship skills.

Those are just some thoughts. I am not advocating a return to polygamy nor trying polyamory. I am a firm believer in the Proclamation.

Glenn

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Wow!  You really added a lot of further conditions there.

Not at all.  It's what we've been discussing all along, isn't it?

Not really. 

My position can be reduced to four words: "polygamy is sometimes commanded."

Your position adds "as part of Christ's teachings" (presumably you are referring specifically and only to Christ's teachings as found in the New Testament) and "or that it was necessary to live in order to restore the fullness of the gospel" (which I have never suggested, and which contravenes the teachings of the Church).

And you have elsewhere added qualifications like "IMO, it was never commanded (that we have a record of)" (that's a huge caveat, don't you think?) and "there is no record of God commanding polygamy" (again, a huge caveat) and "Not commanded by God (that there is record of)" (huge) and "no record of God commanding people to live polygamy in order to live the gospel" (here you are tacitly ignoring Jacob 2:30 and D&C 132), and so on.

So you're muddling things, adding conditions and qualifications and unspoken assumptions and such.

Polygamy was commanded.  It's right there is Jacob 2:30 and D&C 132, and reasonably implied in many other places in the scriptures (such as 2 Samuel).

You are not offering me any exegesis or argument other than your personal say-so.  That's not very persuasive to me.

Quote

If you don't hold that belief, then why do you believe it was necessary or an essential principle in order to restore the fullness of the gospel in the latter days?

I guess I'll go with Acts 3:21 (see here).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 19, 2019 by smac97

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really. 

...So you're muddling things, adding conditions and qualifications and such.

Here's the post you responded to (I didn't add anything and thought this was what we were discussing):

Quote

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72054-apa-on-consensual-nonmonogamy-spin-off-thread-mormon-polygamy/?do=findComment&comment=1209917367

I actually don't believe polygamy was needed as a part of restoring the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

IMO, it was never commanded (that we have a record of) by Christ or taught as an essential part of His gospel.

 

 So, do you believe that it was ever commanded or taught by Christ as an essential part of His gospel?  Was it a necessary principle to live (in the latter days) in order for the fullness of His gospel to be restored?

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Here's the post you responded to (I didn't add anything and thought this was what we were discussing):

So, do you believe that it was ever commanded or taught by Christ as an essential part of His gospel? 

Yes, it was commanded and taught by Christ.

As for whether it is "an essential part of His gospel," I'm not sure what that means.  The Law of Moses was "essential" for those commanded to live it, but not for you and me.  The Church's position is that polygamy is the exception, not the rule, as to marriage, so it does not appear to be "essential" that I practice it.  For those who were commanded/required to practice it, however, yes, that would be "essential."

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Was it a necessary principle to live (in the latter days) in order for the fullness of His gospel to be restored?

I think it was necessary to be restored in this dispensation, but not necessary for everyone to actually practice it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it was commanded and taught by Christ.

Polygamy?

You have his own words teaching the principle (or someone recording his words) and commanding it?

CFR

Edited July 19, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

 

It is evident to me from what I have read about polygamy, actually, polygyny in the case of the Church, is a principle that takes a very high degree of righteousness to live properly. It's history in Biblical times shows just how difficult it is. Look at Jacob/Israel, who is held in such high esteem by God and note his preference for his first love and the problems and heart ache that it caused. There is no wonder that a lot of women who have read those stories have such a difficult time with this principle.

But I think that stemelbow's comparison is inapt. In a non monogamous relationship with multiple partners of both sexes, relationships are really ambiguous, undefined, and children would seemingly be incidental and maybe accidental results of such relationships. The major focus of such an arrangement would be on the adults who engaged in the arrangement, their gratification, their relationships, etc. with any children seemingly being an afterthought. Such children probably would know who their mothers would be, but knowing who their father is would be problematic as it could be any of the men so involved. Add in the possibility/probability that people would move into and out of those arrangements with the children probably going with the mother, to be introduced to a new set of men etc.

Polygamy, on the other, hand, as attempted to be practiced by members of the Church, was/is focused on the family unit. The children know who their mother and their father is. I would think that a polygamous unit would be more stable than a polyamorous situation. But I do not have the statistics to back me up on this. There are several polyamory advocates who write positive articles in Psychology today, but they seem to focus on the ones that are the self reported success stories.

There are a couple of things though that polygamy and polyamory have in common to have any chance of success. A lack of jealousy and good relationship skills.

Those are just some thoughts. I am not advocating a return to polygamy nor trying polyamory. I am a firm believer in the Proclamation.

Glenn

Bold added by me.

I don't see any evidence in the LDS practice of plural marriage to support the conclusion that it was focused on the family unit.  I do agree that polygamy was likely more stable than the world's version of polyamory today but...

If we believe that focusing on the family unit means mother/father jointly caring for their children -- we didn't really have that in these situation where there was one father/husband to 13, 33, or 53 wives and dozens of children.  There's no conceivable way that those children had the same relationship with their father as children being raised in a two parent household.

I don't believe that the current Family Proclamation is reconcilable with the early LDS practice of plural marriage.

[rockpond]

54 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not at all.  It's what we've been discussing all along, isn't it?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72054-apa-on-consensual-nonmonogamy-spin-off-thread-mormon-polygamy/?do=findComment&comment=1209917367

Or, do you believe that polygamy was not a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ? 

If you don't hold that belief, then why do you believe it was necessary or an essential principle in order to restore the fullness of the gospel in the latter days?

My personal argument in favor of polygamy used to be that it had to be restored as part of the "fullness".  After decades of in depth gospel study and lots of prayer, I've concluded that it was just one of the mistakes of men along the way to us learning the fullness.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Yes, it was commanded and taught by Christ.

Polygamy?

Yes.

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You have his own words teaching the principle (or someone recording his words) and commanding it?

C'mon.  D&C 1:38 is binding on us ("my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same").

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

CFR

D&C 132. 

Jacob 2:27 (starting after "hearken to the word of the Lord:") through Jacob 2:33 (ending with "saith the Lord of Hosts").

And 2 Samuel 12:7-8.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

Uh oh... Smac has pulled out the "mormon trump card" (D&C 1:38).  Anything a prophet said is equivalent to the voice of the Lord.  Unless what the prophet said is demonstrably wrong or later contradicted by another prophet, then the prophet was obviously speaking as a man and/or lacking further light and knowledge.

Edited July 19, 2019 by rockpond

[JulieM]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it was commanded and taught by Christ.

So you must believe Christ lived polygamy?

i can’t imagine he’d teach or actually command others to do something he wasn’t living.

I do know that Brigham Young taught that Jesus was a polygamist. So you agree with him?

Edited July 19, 2019 by JulieM