New Book on Polygamy

[Stargazer]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR from current policy book please. Or state it as your interpretation…a very, very common one that was in the past published in manuals, but I don’t believe is now. 

@JLHPROF saved me from looking it up myself. Does that conform to your CFR?

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

So where is it stated that women after death will only be married to one man in the eternities and all other sealings will be meaningless?

It's not.  It's stated clearly that the other sealings would be unauthorized by those holding the keys to bind and lose.  You can draw your own conclusions as to how that transcends the veil.  You know, if we consider sealing keys valid.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

@JLHPROF saved me from looking it up myself. Does that conform to your CFR?

Nope

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's stated clearly that the other sealings would be unauthorized by those holding the keys to bind and lose.

For living women. Says nothing about proxy work. 
 

And there are a number of reports, one from a FAIR member I personally know and trust who applied for an exception for a female member when he was a bishop, where living women had authorized by the First Presidency a second sealing without cancellation. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Calm

[Stargazer]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why silly?  Why is this silly and it is not silly to talk of more women in the CK?  Or were you being silly when you expressed your opinion on that?

It's silly because I said it was silly. Nothing more. @bluebell raised the same question, and I gave her a somewhat better response. 

I appreciate Teancum for his occasionally interesting lines of questioning, but in this case he doesn't care, not really. I didn't see any reason to give him any deeper answer.

It's my considered opinion that more women will be exalted than men. I've cited DC 121 (q.v.) as at least partial support for my opinion. The idea resonates strongly with me, and it seems to me, at least, to be at least part of the justification for plural marriage. I cannot think of another one. Your mileage may vary, as they say.

[Stargazer]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Nope

OK, then, it's my own interpretation.

I am going to be out of this forum for the next few days due to my having to catch an airplane tomorrow to fly back to the UK. I am going to jet-lagged and worn the heck out when I get there, so I have to withdraw from the discussion for the time being. Otherwise, I would have liked to dig deeper into this looking for what you asked. My apologies! 

See you on the other side!  

[Metis_LDS]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

It's my considered opinion that more women will be exalted than men.

Yes I believe that also but I think there is a secondary issue.  So believe for an instant that there will no great numbers out of balance and ask your self why all or any man reaching Celestial status unmarried would automatically want to get married.  Not all men in the Celestial kingdom will have a burning desire to become a God IMO.

[Stargazer]

55 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

Yes I believe that also but I think there is a secondary issue.  So believe for an instant that there will no great numbers out of balance and ask your self why all or any man reaching Celestial status unmarried would automatically want to get married.  Not all men in the Celestial kingdom will have a burning desire to become a God IMO.

Exaltation is for those in the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom.  Those who reach Celestial status unmarried are in the lower two degrees of the Celestial kingdom.

DC 131:1-4 1

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this border of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

All questions of marriage status must be answered before the Resurrection. We are resurrected into the kingdom we are judged to have earned. An unmarried man (or woman) who reaches the CK does not decide whether to get married. That ship would have sailed well before that.

 

[Metis_LDS]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

All questions of marriage status must be answered before the Resurrection. We are resurrected into the kingdom we are judged to have earned. An unmarried man (or woman) who reaches the CK does not decide whether to get married. That ship would have sailed well before that.

Yes it is complicated because of the Resurrection.  My understanding is that the Resurrection is not complete until the end of the millennium. We get fixated on the First Resurrection for no good reason. I have read that the Judgement will be at the beginning of the millennium. Bruce R teaches this in Mormon doctrine page 448 in the 1958 edition.  It makes sense to me that if you are going to look for marriage in the after life it would be useful to know where you going to be beforehand.  Hence the Judgement at the beginning of the millennium and before the Resurrection is complete or else how would you know what type of body you are getting.  My point is this, a single man or woman having been judged and bound for the Celestial Kingdom has a chance to marry before the Resurrection is complete a thousand years worth.  Some may chose not to marry.  I have made many changes after first posting this.  I do not to lead any astray.   There is not a lot of evidence (scriptures) for when persons will be able to arrange marriages in the afterlife that were not done on earth, except it can not be after the Resurrection.  When this is stated does it mean your personal Resurrection or the whole Resurrection process. The above information on the Resurrection and Judgement is solid.  The rest is my own thoughts.

It is complicated see:  

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Does_Jesus's_statement_that_in_the_resurrection_they_"neither_marry_nor_given_in_marriage"_a_refutation_of_the_Mormon_concept_of_eternal_marriage%3F

Edited August 3, 2021 by Metis_LDS
lots of edits because I am a poor writer

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

Yes I believe that also but I think there is a secondary issue.  So believe for an instant that there will no great numbers out of balance and ask your self why all or any man reaching Celestial status unmarried would automatically want to get married.  Not all men in the Celestial kingdom will have a burning desire to become a God IMO.

Why would women be more inclined to be married in the afterlife (prejudgment time) if they were single?  Or are you saying there are tons less single women in the Church? World? Lot of women choosing not to get married now they have other options besides poverty or dependent pitied spinster relation or companion. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Calm

[Metis_LDS]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why would women be more inclined to be married in the afterlife (prejudgment time) if they were single?  Or are you saying there are tons less single women in the Church? World? Lot of women choosing not to get married now they have other options besides poverty or dependent pitied spinster relation or companion. 

First of all you said you would be gone for awhile.  Secondly I do not comment on the ladies because I do not want to get into trouble.  Is it now the fact that I am in trouble for not comenting???

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

First of all you said you would be gone for awhile.  Secondly I do not comment on the ladies because I do not want to get into trouble.  Is it now the fact that I am in trouble for not comenting???

I am only interested in your reasoning.  Why would that get you in trouble?  I find different POVs on the subject fascinating for the most part.  Your question is not one I have encountered before.  I would like to hear you flesh it out.

As to being gone…wanting to go to sleep rarely matches with actual sleeping in my life. It was not a topic that required much thought, and I need distraction and might as well perhaps learn something useful. 

[Metis_LDS]

The most honest answer is that I was only looking at from the male perspective.  But okay I will try.  ""Why would women be more inclined to be married in the afterlife (prejudgment time) if they were single?""  I really do not know if that is the case.    ""Or are you saying there are tons less single women in the Church? World?""  My limited personal experience is that there are many single women in the Church.  In the world,  that is difficult to get that kind of data for each country.  ""Lot of women choosing not to get married now they have other options besides poverty or dependent pitied spinster relation or companion.""  I took this as a statement and not a question.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Metis_LDS
correction

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It's not.  It's stated clearly that the other sealings would be unauthorized by those holding the keys to bind and lose.  You can draw your own conclusions as to how that transcends the veil.  You know, if we consider sealing keys valid.

Would you have a problem if your wife was able to have more than one husband in the hereafter? Or even several husbands? Maybe that's the problem, men's usual take about the women only able to be sealed to one man from early on in the church. Because as has been mentioned somewhere on this thread, what if there were more righteous men than women? 

@Stargazer mentioned how in his experience or mind, not sure, women were more spiritual and kinder than men. Well, I counter that, in my experience I've seen women be the opposite and put on acts at church. And I've seen very, very kind and spiritual men. 

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Current Church Handbook

38.4.1.3 Sealing of Living Members after a Spouse’s Death

      Women. After a living woman has been sealed to a husband in the temple, she may not be sealed again unless she receives a cancellation of the first sealing.

      Men. If a husband and wife have been sealed and the wife dies, the man may have another woman sealed to him if she is not already sealed to another man. In this circumstance, the man does not need a sealing clearance from the First Presidency unless he was divorced from his previous wife before she died (see 38.4.1.2 for the policy in cases of divorce).

 

Since this is official Church policy any sealings performed that violate this (unless they have a First Presidency approval I suppose) would be considered unauthorized by the one holding the keys.  And therefore invalid.

I think Cal was looking for a reference saying that a woman would have to choose between the husbands she was sealed too.

It’s also interesting that the FP has given some women permission to be sealed to more than one man while alive, considering handbook policy.

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The "cleanup" I spoke about did not deal with proxy baptism. It dealt with the sealing of husbands and wives (and by implication, children to parents). When proxy marriage sealing work for a deceased person is performed, it is customary to seal them to every marriage partner they had in life. But ultimately, in the kingdom of God, a woman can only be sealed in eternity to one man, regardless of how many she was married to in life. A man might be sealed to every woman he was married to, but what if one or more of them were sealed to another man? Who goes with whom? This is where God does the "cleanup". In the end, His judgment and mercy orders those matters which are in doubt.

It is different when it comes to baptism of water and spirit. The Lord was very clear when he spoke to Nicodemus:

John 3:5 - Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The work must be done in order for the person to enter the kingdom of God. The Lord has never at any time said anything to indicate that there were to be exceptions; nobody gets into God's kingdom without this ordinance.  Whether in this life, or by proxy by someone acting on their behalf after this life, the ordinance must be performed . Of course, acceptance of the ordinance by person for whom it was done is entirely up to them.

There are plenty of people who lived and died on earth for whom there is no surviving record of their existence, and who never heard of Christ in this life. We cannot now do the work for these people, but according to Christ's emphatic word, they must also receive baptism by water and by spirit. The justice and mercy of God in connection with the work of necessary ordinances for these people will be done during the Millennium, when the records of Heaven will be revealed to those who live during that time, so that those unknown people have the same chance we all have. We believe that that is a major purpose of the Millennium, to see to the saving ordinances of all who have lived and died without record, and who have accepted the Gospel in the Spirit World. 

Of course they have agency at the judgment. But by the time a person comes up for judgment, the person to be judged will have either accepted or rejected the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And according to the mandate we've been given (which I alluded to above) there will be no exceptions in the matter of whether or not proxy ordinances had been performed in their behalf. Every child of God will have his or her work done, and will have the opportunity to accept or reject it. Then and only then will they be judged. It won't be necessary for God to hand out an exception because for some unaccountable reason, someone forgot to do the needed proxy work. 

If God allows one person to enter the kingdom of God without having done the requirements He Himself laid out (e.g. water and spirit baptism), but requires it of another, does this not make God a respecter of persons?

Do you believe that Christ dispensed mercy and judgment on folks in some arbitrary fashion, blessing some and cursing others based on his mood at the time? A just God rewards those who obey Him. And those who do not obey Him will not be rewarded. If He does otherwise then there is no justice. Mercy is available for those who have disobeyed, but only upon condition of repentance. And those who do not repent will not be rewarded. If you cannot depend upon God to be consistent, then you have a changeable God. And a changeable God is not God.

"[I]n his non-glorified pre-resurrection existence" Christ taught living people His gospel, and preached obedience to God, and repentance for disobedience. He performed miracles for and healed those who had faith. He wasn't there to judge. Nobody whom Christ came into contact with during his mortal ministry was ever judged by Him. That's because judgement comes at the end.

Thank you for the very thorough and clear response to my questions. I also agree Christ was clear with Nicodemus, but my understanding of Christ's words in that passage bring me to a very different conclusion as to what he was communicating to this esteemed Jewish rabbi and scholar. It was a literal conversation between two men representing the old and the new covenants. Nicodemus asked a question. Christ answered it in the OT concept of cleansing or purifying by water that Nicodemus would have understood.  Nicodemus understood Ezekiel 36: 24-28 - which detailed a great Jewish hope. I think Christ was using a metaphor of water that Nicodemus would have understood and the light could have dawned in his (Nicodemus) mind. Christ was, in his atonement all about the fulfillment of the promise of Ezekiel 36. Christ was a role model of a great teacher. He taught in ways his listeners (whether 5000 or 1) could understand given their own knowledge and background. I do not believe that Christ was ever "arbitrary," especially not based on his mood! I am not sure where that came from! When Christ was talking to Nicodemus, the atonement had not yet even taken place, but He was still at that point the Son of God. He could and did declare to others (with certitude, not with arbitrariness) and with perfect assurance "your faith has made you whole (sodzo - to be protected, be healed,  to be rescued-saved from destruction)." That indeed was a judgment and was valid for all eternity!

Anyway, thanks so much for your thorough and clear reply. It is greatly appreciated. We simply have a very different view of the efficacy of ordinances, especially as related to what I understand about the final judgment. There may be many criteria that Christ takes into consideration as He ponders our final destiny, but I think faith, given the light we have received (special and general revelation combined) carries the greatest weight, according to my understanding of the New Testament. The idea of obedience taking precedence over sacrifice was an OT concept based on the covenant of the law. Christ came to introduce a new covenant via the atonement.

[smac97]

On 7/31/2021 at 2:05 PM, bluebell said:

Also speaking for myself, I don't find those kinds of experiences trustworthy.   I was once in a sacrament meeting where a woman with a beautiful voice sang Amazing Grace.  It was so touching.  I thought it made the whole sacrament meeting.

But later that day I was talking to the bishop about something--a great man--and it came out that he had told her she couldn't sing that song in church.  He commented on how the spirit instantly left the meeting when she started singing it.

I didn't say anything (other than that I loved it) but I could recognize that the spirit didn't actually leave, he just lost the ability to feel it because he was angry at her.  If the rest of the congregation had know she was actively doing something she was told she couldn't do, it would have impacted our ability to gauge the presence of the spirit as well.  But we didn't know so those awkward negative emotions weren't in play for us like they were for him.

That's an interesting scenario.

On 7/31/2021 at 2:05 PM, bluebell said:

Likewise, if someone is convinced that polygamy was wrong because they themselves have very strong but negative emotions connected to it, I don't think they are in a position to gauge the presence of the spirit either.  That much (negative or positive) emotion easily gets in the way.

Yep.  This is why I have come to value Michael Ash's Four-Legged Stool:

Quote

Richard Hooker, a 16th century Anglican Theologian wrote that the sources of spiritual authority are Scriptures, Tradition, and Reason. Later writers described these three sources with the analogy of the legs of a three-legged stool—each leg is necessary to hold up the stool. We might modify this approach for LDS use with an analogy of a four-legged table. In Mormon thought the sources of spiritual authority would be Scripture, Modern Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason.

As truth-seekers we should make every effort to include all four of these ingredients into the spiritual and intellectual process that generates our individual beliefs. Utilizing all four factors helps us arrive at truth—it doesn’t guarantee we’ll arrive at ultimate truth because, once again, that’s not possible for mere mortals. We have a better chance, however, of arriving at truth if we apply all four ingredients compared to using only a few of the components.

Unfortunately, from my many years of experience helping those who have struggled with intellectual issues that have challenged faith, I’ve found that many Latter-Day Saints do not apply all four components to their approach of determining truth. Using one or two of the tools may serve some members well, but others members may end up with damaged testimonies when something shakes their faith.

The entire article is worth a read.

On 7/31/2021 at 2:05 PM, bluebell said:

Quote

But I'm not sure it merits much emphasis, either.  

We don't dwell on animal sacrifice, or circumcision, or other particulars of the Law of Moses, either.  These are just as much a part of our doctrine and religious heritage.

It's not just in our heritage though.  It's currently being practiced in the temple, and every latter-day saint wife who is married in the temple has to face the idea that, should she die before her husband, she could end up in a polygamous relationship for eternity.  Obviously we know that God would not force anyone into any kind of relationship, but if a beloved husband gets sealed to another woman, that puts the first wife in a spot to either lose him and those blessings, or face the idea of something she might really loath right now.

I could imagine that faithful Latter-day Saint men might also be uncomfortable with the idea of being sealed to more than one woman.  Divided loyalties and all that.

I could also imagine an avid pet person who is, in the abstract, horrified at the idea that God commanded our ancestors to kill animals and burn their carcasses on altars.  Such a person would "face the idea of something {they} might really loath right now."  

As a practical matter, polygamy is on the same footing as animal sacrifice and other not-currently-practiced tenets of revelation and faith.  I think the answer is to exercise faith and patience.  As you say, "we know that God would not force anyone into any kind of relationship."  Trust in that.  Trust that the Lord has these things well in hand.  "Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend."  (Mosiah 4:9.)

On 7/31/2021 at 2:05 PM, bluebell said:

Also, there are still some aspects of how it was practiced, that are enshrined in our scriptures, that can be legitimately concerning for women to work through. 

Definitely.  And for men as well.

On 7/31/2021 at 2:05 PM, bluebell said:

Not the least of which is trying to understand some verses in D&C 132 which explicitly state that any woman who refused to allow her husband to take another wife would be destroyed by the Lord.   

I assume you are referenced verse 54: "And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law."  Isn't disobedience/rebellion something we all must overcome?  Joseph was apparently threatened with destruction in other cirumstances.  This does not seem to be a gendered thing, but is instead consequent to making covenants and being obedient.

Nevertheless, I've long thought that to be an interesting insight as to the inherent influence/power/authority that women have.  D&C 132 includes commandments that constrain the use of such things.  Similarly, there are constraints placed on how men use their influence/power/authority (such as D&C 121).  And then there are constraints that are placed on all of us, regardless of gender.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 7/31/2021 at 3:22 PM, ksfisher said:

FYI, “Amazing Grace” was left out of the current hymn book because it was felt it too closely taught the protestant doctrine of salvation by grace alone.  I got that from the son of one of the then committee members.  

How many of us are hoping that it gets put back in to the forthcoming hymnal?  I sure am (along with "Come, Though Fount" and a few others).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 7/31/2021 at 3:24 PM, mgy401 said:

Then again, every married man in the Church has to face the idea that should he die before his wife, his wife may remarry and have the sealing done (whether in her life or posthumously) and then “choose” to spend eternity in the company of her second husband.

I thought the Church's policy was that a woman can only be sealed to one man.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How many of us are hoping that it gets put back in to the forthcoming hymnal?  I sure am (along with "Come, Though Fount" and a few others).

Thanks,

-Smac

I'd go back to church for this!

I remember fondly going to see my mom at an assisted care center with memory care, and an awesome woman who had pick's disease would greet us at the door and sing "Amazing Grace", each and every time. How I loved hearing her sing it. 

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How many of us are hoping that it gets put back in to the forthcoming hymnal?  I sure am (along with "Come, Though Fount" and a few others).

Thanks,

-Smac

Not me.  I've heard the song enough times (and enough times sung poorly) to last the rest of my life.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I could imagine that faithful Latter-day Saint men might also be uncomfortable with the idea of being sealed to more than one woman.  Divided loyalties and all that.

I could also imagine an avid pet person who is, in the abstract, horrified at the idea that God commanded our ancestors to kill animals and burn their carcasses on altars.  Such a person would "face the idea of something {they} might really loath right now."  

But a man doesn't have to worry about his wife choosing a polygamous marriage for him after he's dead but she's still alive.  That is why comparisons to how a man might not want to be polygamous either don't help much.  They are apples to oranges, in the context that we are referring to it.  In the past, when a man might have been commanded to live it who didn't want to, the comparison works much better.  But that is not the reality that we are dealing with today.

And I also don't find comparisons of polygamy and animal sacrifice very relevant.  Polygamy, for women, is not some unpleasant thing they read about.  It's an actual possibility of their eternity.

Quote

As a practical matter, polygamy is on the same footing as animal sacrifice and other not-currently-practiced tenets of revelation and faith.  I think the answer is to exercise faith and patience.  As you say, "we know that God would not force anyone into any kind of relationship."  Trust in that.  Trust that the Lord has these things well in hand.  "Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend."  (Mosiah 4:9.)

I don't agree that polygamy is on the same footing as animal sacrifice, or that it's not currently being practiced.  It is currently being practiced, just not here on earth.     

I don't think any women are worried that they might be forced to sacrifice an animal against their will after they die or lose their chance at exaltation with their husband, but that is exactly what some women are worried about in regards to polygamy.  To the point that I know of one woman who refuses to get sealed in the temple to her husband because she's so afraid of it happening to her.

As I said in a previous post, women know that God won't force them to be in a polygamous marriage, BUT, if their husband gets sealed to another woman after they are dead, a lot of women view their choices between polygamous marriage they don't want or losing a beloved husband.  In that sense, the idea that they won't be forced into it brings no comfort to them.

Quote

Nevertheless, I've long thought that to be an interesting insight as to the inherent influence/power/authority that women have.  D&C 132 includes commandments that constrain the use of such things.  Similarly, there are constraints placed on how men use their influence/power/authority (such as D&C 121).  And then there are constraints that are placed on all of us, regardless of gender.

I guess that's one way to look at it.  

Edited August 3, 2021 by bluebell

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think Cal was looking for a reference saying that a woman would have to choose between the husbands she was sealed too.

It’s also interesting that the FP has given some women permission to be sealed to more than one man while alive, considering handbook policy.

I think there are special dispensations made to "cover our bases".  In other words I think the allowance is to address some uncertainty, not to create an eternal polyandrous union.
Every sealing ordinance has to be completed in mortality (hence the 1000 years of temple work called the Millennium).  By making exception to allow such sealings they are just ensuring the correct one is complete.
I don't see ANY indication that our leaders are approving the creation of polyandrous eternal families.

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I thought the Church's policy was that a woman can only be sealed to one man.

It is.  @Calm just knows of one or two special cases where exceptions are made by the First Presidency.  That alone confirms the policy to me (the exception that proves the rule).

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Would you have a problem if your wife was able to have more than one husband in the hereafter? Or even several husbands? Maybe that's the problem, men's usual take about the women only able to be sealed to one man from early on in the church. Because as has been mentioned somewhere on this thread, what if there were more righteous men than women? 

I have my beliefs as to why polygamy is an acceptable family form but polyandry is not.  You can call that sexism or self-serving if it makes you feel better.  To me it has to do with nothing more than doctrine, scripture, and precedence for the natural order of things.  If we found out our doctrines, revelations, and precedents were in error I'd adjust - I want things as they actually are in God's kingdom, not as we'd like them to be.  Right now however, I don't think there's any mistake.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I thought the Church's policy was that a woman can only be sealed to one man.

Thanks,

-Smac

It is.  But technically a widow could choose to end her sealing with a deceased husband so she could be sealed to another man.  But this is really only an easy option if the husband died very early in the marriage and they had no kids.  Otherwise, it will be hard for the woman to get an approval to end her first sealing. 

She would mostly likely be asked to wait until death and be sealed to both men, with the understanding that she would have to choose between them in the next life.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

It is.  But technically a widow could choose to end her sealing with a deceased husband so she could be sealed to another man.  But this is really only an easy option if the husband died very early in the marriage and they had no kids.  Otherwise, it will be hard for the woman to get an approval to end her first sealing. 

She would mostly likely be asked to wait until death and be sealed to both men, with the understanding that she would have to choose between them in the next life.

Now this I do agree with to some extent.
I reject any notion of eternal polyandry.  But I don't reject the idea of agency.  Brigham Young had some very interesting things to say on this principle of marital agency in the eternities that favored the man or favored the woman.
But I think I'll refrain from posting those quotes.  They aren't usually well received.