Massacre in Mexico a Stepping Stone Toward Legalization of Polygamy?

[nuclearfuels]

12 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I was discussing this thread with my wife after I made my first post in response to this, and she said, "Well, if this verse does apply to a time just before the millennium, the seven women taking hold of one man would be because all the other men are off playing video games somewhere".  I THINK she was kidding (but I'm not sure).

That's the beautiful thing about where we are now, in the history of the world. No matter how offended we all are at current events, our opinions and feelings remain as irrelevant as ever.

The Decline of the West is an excellent book that discusses the winter of civilizations, like the current US

I can see 3rd, 4th, 5th wave feminisim leading women to basically beg MGTOW and red pilled men to marry them, whether due to the scarcity of men due to wars or for many other reasons.

The most interesting part of this verse is: It does not state that the men accept the women's proposal. Acceptance is another thing entirely.

Edited November 17, 2019 by nuclearfuels

[nuclearfuels]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

I really would like to know the viewpoint of someone who is praying for its return, that is  unusual...at least in speaking about it.

1. Men have 14 to 20 times the testosterone women have.  That means very different things when it comes to drive, so to speak. Imagine going to General COnference and being told: Repent vs. You Are Enough (April 2019, for example). Men are supposed to "cure" or pray away their biology. Women are supposed to be adored regardless of their behavior, including their relationship w/ their spouse. 

2. Men often cheat on their wives. If polygamy was legal, those same men might not cheat, having another option when one wife is tired, has a headache, etc. I would prefer to not cheat on my wife.

3. I don't support abortions. I imagine there would be fewer if more adults pooled their resources (one wife works, one husband works, second wife is the homemaker, etc.)

4. Germany indirectly and Kenya directly have plans to legalize polygamy. It's really not an uncommon or unwanted practice in the Middle East and Africa. Where harsh climates have left minimal resources, pooling resources together helps adults have more posterity that doesn't starve. 

5. Existing polygamous communities in UT, other spots of the US, and in Canada would likely be policed "more thoroughly" (meaning: at all) if the local politicians and police weren't paid off by the local polygamists.  One UT legislator is making this case with the decriminalization bill or "make polygamy less of an offense than it currently is" bill.

6. Some people claim they support equality for women. Would that alleged equality include the ability to let women make thier own choice on who they want to marry, a poly-man or not, or would such equality not be real equality because...?...some women can't be trusted to make their own decisions?

 

 

[Stargazer]

On 11/14/2019 at 11:34 PM, Metis_LDS said:

2 Nephi 14:1

1 ^aAnd 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 ^breproach.

 

 

On 11/14/2019 at 11:47 PM, JLHPROF said:

Interesting to note this refers to a future event.  The chapter heading states this is at the start of the Millennial period.

I had always taken this scripture to refer to a shortage of marriageable men so that in order to get married ("called by thy name") several women would have to share a husband -- and to make the man amenable to this, they would not require him to support them financially.

A situation which would -- and could -- occur in the case of a devastating war in which many young men were killed, but which left most young women alive.  In the Paraguayan War (1864–1870) Paraguay lost huge numbers of men.  The exact figures are highly disputed, but it may have been up to half the population, and of course, most of the dead were men.  

ETA: I guess that's already been addressed.

Edited November 17, 2019 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 11/15/2019 at 1:37 AM, Calm said:

I am not antipolygamy, but do you really think a marriage as described in the scripture as in name only for respectability with the women providing for all their own needs is really the type of marriage the Church would be supportive of?

I don't think there is the suggestion here of a type of marriage initiated by the Church. The scripture seems to be indicating that conditions will be so extreme that some women would be driven to having to share a husband.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Some people claim they support equality for women. Would that alleged equality include the ability to let women make thier own choice on who they want to marry, a poly-man or not, or would such equality not be real equality because...?...some women can't be trusted to make their own decisions?

 

So are you supportive of polyandry as well?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Men often cheat on their wives. If polygamy was legal, those same men might not cheat, having another option when one wife is tired, has a headache, etc. I would prefer to not cheat on my wife.

Given the 'sexual liberation' for women, chances are cheating by women would rise dramatically if polyandry was not legalized at the same time.

According to this, women were actually more likely to cheat than men up to age 30.  The older they got, the more likely men cheated, women grew less and then dropped.  This could be cultural (women were stigmatized much more than men for cheating in the past, so older women are still in that mindset) or biological or both.  Also could be older women may be more financially dependent on their husbands due to having children, etc. and therefore greater risks for women to cheat, so they don't.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/who-cheats-more-the-demographics-of-cheating-in-america

If cultural, the differences in cheating at older ages will diminish over time.  If financial, having to share resources of one husband with another woman or women might lead higher income producing women to cheat more since if they get caught, might be better for them financially to leave.

Added later:  So if justifying polygyny on the grounds of avoiding cheating by men, that just might open up the gate for increased cheating of women. Lose-lose, imo. 

If polygamy is supposed to be for the benefit of increasing available blessings, then surely that would apply to chaste and righteous men and women, not those who would only not cheat if they had an available married partner. Not exactly celestial material, imo. 

Edited November 18, 2019 by Calm

[Teancum]

On 11/14/2019 at 3:55 PM, JLHPROF said:

In Utah we were on our way to decriminalizing it (not legalizing, but decriminalizing).

Then some busybody Utah state senator with an axe to grind got all uptight and got it upgraded criminally.

And it's still never prosecuted.
Polygamy, the marijuana of marriage...the only reason it's illegal is because some busybody wants to interfere with agency.

I am all for free choice and agency. So I am fine with consenting adults entering into bigamy, polygamy or whatever as long is it is not done under duress including religious duress. But I bet the LDS leadership has no desire to see polygamy legalized. Because if it is then what does the Church do? Well they are not going to re-institute it of course.  They would lose far to many members. They will just say we only do plural marriage when the Lord commands and he is not commanding it now.  That may cause some purists, maybe people like you, to leave but that number would be far less than if they reconstituted it.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

1. Men have 14 to 20 times the testosterone women have.  That means very different things when it comes to drive, so to speak. Imagine going to General COnference and being told: Repent vs. You Are Enough (April 2019, for example). Men are supposed to "cure" or pray away their biology. Women are supposed to be adored regardless of their behavior, including their relationship w/ their spouse. 

2. Men often cheat on their wives. If polygamy was legal, those same men might not cheat, having another option when one wife is tired, has a headache, etc. I would prefer to not cheat on my wife.

3. I don't support abortions. I imagine there would be fewer if more adults pooled their resources (one wife works, one husband works, second wife is the homemaker, etc.)

4. Germany indirectly and Kenya directly have plans to legalize polygamy. It's really not an uncommon or unwanted practice in the Middle East and Africa. Where harsh climates have left minimal resources, pooling resources together helps adults have more posterity that doesn't starve. 

5. Existing polygamous communities in UT, other spots of the US, and in Canada would likely be policed "more thoroughly" (meaning: at all) if the local politicians and police weren't paid off by the local polygamists.  One UT legislator is making this case with the decriminalization bill or "make polygamy less of an offense than it currently is" bill.

6. Some people claim they support equality for women. Would that alleged equality include the ability to let women make thier own choice on who they want to marry, a poly-man or not, or would such equality not be real equality because...?...some women can't be trusted to make their own decisions?

1. And when the wealthy have five wives each and many single men cannot marry and still have that 14 to 20 times as much testosterone what would you suggest? 

2. And if both have headaches? Add another one? You would prefer not to cheat on your wife? You could, you know, just not cheat even if there is not another readily available wife.

3. And think of the messy divorces!

4. That it survives most often in areas where women have less freedom of choice triggers no alarm bells?

5. What would stop them from continuing to pay them off?

6. And if your wife decided to marry another man as well as you are you saying you would not trust her to make her own decisions?

 

I am not against polygyny or polyandry but your arguments for it are not good.

[The Nehor]

Just now, Teancum said:

I am all for free choice and agency. So I am fine with consenting adults entering into bigamy, polygamy or whatever as long is it is not done under duress including religious duress. But I bet the LDS leadership has no desire to see polygamy legalized. Because if it is then what does the Church do? Well they are not going to re-institute it of course.  They would lose far to many members. They will just say we only do plural marriage when the Lord commands and he is not commanding it now.  That may cause some purists, maybe people like you, to leave but that number would be far less than if they reconstituted it.

Even when it was allowed it generally required permission from leadership. More then "every adult involved consents".

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Even when it was allowed it generally required permission from leadership. More then "every adult involved consents".

Or at times leadership ordered someone to take another wife or two.

[nuclearfuels]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

1. And when the wealthy have five wives each and many single men cannot marry and still have that 14 to 20 times as much testosterone what would you suggest? 

2. And if both have headaches? Add another one? You would prefer not to cheat on your wife? You could, you know, just not cheat even if there is not another readily available wife.

3. And think of the messy divorces!

4. That it survives most often in areas where women have less freedom of choice triggers no alarm bells?

5. What would stop them from continuing to pay them off?

6. And if your wife decided to marry another man as well as you are you saying you would not trust her to make her own decisions?

 

I am not against polygyny or polyandry but your arguments for it are not good.

Ah, Nehor. Let us now calmly engage in civil argumentation. Haven't we done this before on earlier threads, though?

1. What to Expect when No One's Expecting is an excellent book about plunging demographics, globally.  Rich people in countries where polygamy is legal aren't marrying dozens of women; usually the max is 3, within and without Islam. Marriage is tough. The economy is tough. It's not going to get any better any time soon.  

2. You are claiming here that my biology and yours are the problem. That is not an argument.  Yes, I have free will and I can suppress a lot of things but at some point, one realizes it's just not healthy.

3. Existing incorporation laws of each state and their accompanying case law would provide precedents for divorces; alimony, inheritance, custody could be decided by the time of entrance and exit from the plural union

4. No. Abraham and Moses, Joseph Smith and Brigham, Wilford Woodruff et al. do not trigger alarm bells to me.

5. The benefit of paying them off would be removed, as polygamy would be legalized and the enforcement of laws by blind justice would need to prevail - ideally to root out cases of abuse, neglect, etc. because those types of things never happen outside of polygamous communities.

6. That's fine, for a straw man argument but not for our discussion.  If my wife married another man, then she'd have to manage a 30:1 to 40:1 ratio of testosterone, so yeah; I wouldn't wish that on her or my worst enemy but if we both felt God and the Prophet, needed that to happen, sure. 

If biology which was used to persuade SCOTUS on Obergfell and history (Jewish, Islam, African) are unpersuasive arguments, I don't have any others.

[nuclearfuels]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Given the 'sexual liberation' for women, chances are cheating by women would rise dramatically if polyandry was not legalized at the same time.

According to this, women were actually more likely to cheat than men up to age 30.  The older they got, the more likely men cheated, women grew less and then dropped.  This could be cultural (women were stigmatized much more than men for cheating in the past, so older women are still in that mindset) or biological or both.  Also could be older women may be more financially dependent on their husbands due to having children, etc. and therefore greater risks for women to cheat, so they don't.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/who-cheats-more-the-demographics-of-cheating-in-america

If cultural, the differences in cheating at older ages will diminish over time.  If financial, having to share resources of one husband with another woman or women might lead higher income producing women to cheat more since if they get caught, might be better for them financially to leave.

Added later:  So if justifying polygyny on the grounds of avoiding cheating by men, that just might open up the gate for increased cheating of women. Lose-lose, imo. 

If polygamy is supposed to be for the benefit of increasing available blessings, then surely that would apply to chaste and righteous men and women, not those who would only not cheat if they had an available married partner. Not exactly celestial material, imo. 

Thanks Calm.

In my Telestial-at-best opinion, increased blessings, biology which was used to persuade SCOTUS on Obergfell, and history (Jewish, Islam, African) are sufficient arguments.

The real question is: if three non-LDS people enter a polygamous marriage and raise children in a good, healthy way, are they not helping fulfill God's command to multiply and replenish the earth?  If a non-LDS person helps another non-LDS person, doesn't that help, that service, result in blessings and smile emojis in the silent-notes taken by angels above us? 

[nuclearfuels]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

So are you supportive of polyandry as well?

Absolutely.  

I imagine SCOTUS will legalize polyandry.

The Church may/may not re-institute polygamy. 

[sunstoned]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

I really would like to know the viewpoint of someone who is praying for its return, that is  unusual...at least in speaking about it.

I don't know why someone would want this (polygamy) to return.  It is a system that disparages women.  It treats them like possessions.  This is a typical male viewpoint of the 19th century, and regrettably, for most of the 20th century.   When a member of society (women, LGBTQ, Jews, Muslims, etc.) is disrespected, it is an indictment on everyone. It diminishes everyone. This is a lesson that apparently is not easily learned. 

 

Even those who are at the top. 

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I don't know why someone would want this (polygamy) to return.  It is a system that disparages women.  It treats them like possessions.  This is a typical male viewpoint of the 19th century, and regrettably, for most of the 20th century.   When a member of society (women, LGBTQ, Jews, Muslims, etc.) is disrespected, it is an indictment on everyone. It diminishes everyone. This is a lesson that apparently is not easily learned. 

Even those who are at the top. 

It's amazing how different two world views can be.  I disagree with almost every perspective you expressed here.  But I appreciate being presented with an opposing viewpoint.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Or at times leadership ordered someone to take another wife or two.

True, that is what happened to my great great grandfather. He was asked to take another wife. He did not want to but I think I have told this story before.

[sunstoned]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's amazing how different two world views can be.  I disagree with almost every perspective you expressed here.  But I appreciate being presented with an opposing viewpoint.

I agree that we are coming from two very different vantage points, and I am sure we are not going to change each others minds.  I am so glad that we live is a society where we can disagree, yet co-exist.

Edited November 18, 2019 by sunstoned

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

Ah, Nehor. Let us now calmly engage in civil argumentation. Haven't we done this before on earlier threads, though?

1. What to Expect when No One's Expecting is an excellent book about plunging demographics, globally.  Rich people in countries where polygamy is legal aren't marrying dozens of women; usually the max is 3, within and without Islam. Marriage is tough. The economy is tough. It's not going to get any better any time soon.  

2. You are claiming here that my biology and yours are the problem. That is not an argument.  Yes, I have free will and I can suppress a lot of things but at some point, one realizes it's just not healthy.

3. Existing incorporation laws of each state and their accompanying case law would provide precedents for divorces; alimony, inheritance, custody could be decided by the time of entrance and exit from the plural union

4. No. Abraham and Moses, Joseph Smith and Brigham, Wilford Woodruff et al. do not trigger alarm bells to me.

5. The benefit of paying them off would be removed, as polygamy would be legalized and the enforcement of laws by blind justice would need to prevail - ideally to root out cases of abuse, neglect, etc. because those types of things never happen outside of polygamous communities.

6. That's fine, for a straw man argument but not for our discussion.  If my wife married another man, then she'd have to manage a 30:1 to 40:1 ratio of testosterone, so yeah; I wouldn't wish that on her or my worst enemy but if we both felt God and the Prophet, needed that to happen, sure. 

If biology which was used to persuade SCOTUS on Obergfell and history (Jewish, Islam, African) are unpersuasive arguments, I don't have any others.

1. I am not sure how your response relates at all. Are you suggesting demographics will be improved by polygyny?

2. As someone who has never been married I agree that my lifestyle is not healthy but breaking the commandments seems less healthy and, unless someone can alter birth rates to increase the ratio of women to men, men marrying multiple women but not vice-versa puts more men into my situation.

3. Possessions might be covered but how do you deal with a child who has five parents all wanting some form of custody. They are the real concern, not who gets the house.

4. Their marriages do set off bells for me. I can accept it is sometimes the will of God but if I were in the First Presidency making these calls I would need revelation to that effect before I tell a 50 year old he can marry a 20 year old as a fifth wife.

5. If they are in a culture of abuse like you suggest then they still have reason to buy off or coopt local law enforcement.

6. The ability to use a hypothetical argument to experience empathy is not a straw man. Being asked to put yourself in someone’s place and replying that you will never be in their place is a cheap dodge. Your testosterone argument is also silly. It is not the sole arbiter of desire and in many couples the woman has the higher sex drive. Cue someone making a juvenile joke.

What biology that was used to argue Obergfel are you referring to?

[Calm]

On 11/17/2019 at 8:39 PM, sunstoned said:

I don't know why someone would want this (polygamy) to return.  It is a system that disparages women.  It treats them like possessions.  This is a typical male viewpoint of the 19th century, and regrettably, for most of the 20th century.   When a member of society (women, LGBTQ, Jews, Muslims, etc.) is disrespected, it is an indictment on everyone. It diminishes everyone. This is a lesson that apparently is not easily learned. 

 

Even those who are at the top. 

Except he is actually for polygamy and not polygyny even if he is arguing from the standpoint of polygyny. 

If women also have the ability to marry as many men as they desire, that is a significantly different system. It would be interesting to see if culturally it would truly be balanced or if there were fewer women wanting multiple husbands.  Or if more men refused to stay in such marriages...it might follow the same dynamics of the percentages of men wanting to marry women who make substantially more money than they do (those that may be attracted to their wives, but are at least as attracted to the money if being rich is a requirement for their spouse).  Our current culture would suggest more women would be satisfied with their partner having multiple partners as opposed to men.

Would women in a society that allows them financial freedom choose to join a polygynist relationship?

My biggest concern is what happens to women (or men for that matter) who married monogamously and then their husband decides he wants another wife, enough so where he is constantly pressuring her to accept. Her only threat might be to walk. Is that a real penalty in these days when divorce is seen as another norm?

Perhaps prenups could include huge penalties for the original wives if more are added that allows them to stay married, but still feel they have some say in things. But that would really sour a relationship I am thinking. 

Likely the only polygamist relationships that have a hope of enduring is when all expect them as such and husbands and wives are both on board and not resistant to the idea. 

Edited November 19, 2019 by Calm

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

So are you supportive of polyandry as well?

That's an interesting question, meaning the question of polyandry in general, not whether @nuclearfuels is supportive of it.

One of my favorite sci-fi authors, Robert A. Heinlein, in his novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" posited the Moon as a penal colony for the world, where the nations of the earth shipped their undesirables and criminals.  Because most criminals are men, this penal colony had a shortage of women, and Heinlein described systematic forms of polyamory that resulted, including what he called "line marriages"  and polyandry.  Heinlein figured that in order to somehow have access to women, men would grudgingly go along with sharing them with others. 

I do kind of wonder if something like that will become a "thing" in China, where the "one-child policy" (now ended) has caused a dearth of marriageable women in certain age-groups.  I've not heard that this has happened, however.

Edited November 18, 2019 by Stargazer

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

My biggest concern is what happens to women who married monogamously and then their husband decides he wants another wife, enough so where he is constantly pressuring her to accept. Her only threat might be to walk. Is that a real penalty in these days when divorce is seen as another norm?

Look at how it works in polyamory now. Look on a secular platform like Reddit. The joke is that when one member of a relationship wants to see other people and pressure the other into it almost inevitably ends up with one partner getting a ton of action on the side and the other getting none. Ironically it is usually the one who wanted the open relationship to play on the side that gets nothing. Maybe it is a just universe. Then the one who fails at finding anyone petulantly wants to close it again. Polyamory is usually just a slow way of breaking up.

Seriously if you want to have some fun red the stories of the polycules or whatever they are called now. If you are feeling down about your life they will make it seem better by comparison.

That being said I have seen such relationships work both in history (including my own family) and in modern day. I got invited into one in college and only narrowly refused. One of those temptations that almost got me. That said it is usually much more difficult than monogamy.

[Islander]

These women in chapter 3 and 4 are in pretty bad shape because of the judgement of the Lord on Israel (the daughters of Zion). The text has reference to polygamy. Let's not read into it what is not there. The prophet here is pronouncing a wo on Israel and warning of the things to come. The men will fall by the sword and there won't be anybody to left marry.

and it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink;
and instead of a girdle a rent;
and instead of well set hair baldness;
and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth;
and burning instead of beauty.
²⁵ Thy men shall fall by the sword,
and thy mighty in the war.
²⁶ And her gates shall lament and mourn;
and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground.

Now, who wants to marry 7 stinky, torn up, burn up, bold, depressed women? Certainly not me.