So what DID polygamy accomplish,

[Guest johnny_cat]

BTW what is a ziff?

I thought you are/were LDS. Sorry if my obscure Mormon reference stumped you. I think I must have had a neas stuck in my throat when I wrote it.

[Moksha]

Okay, what's a ziff?

Joe, would it be a good assumption that you are one who likes to needle Mormons. I was going to suggest that Progressive Mormon be a better descriptor than Cafeteria Mormon.

If you are one who likes to needle Mormons, you probably want them pigeon holed as tightly as possible.

[Guest johnny_cat]

Mosiah 11: 3

3 And he laid a tax of one fifth part of all they possessed, a fifth part of their gold and of their silver, and a fifth part of their ziff, and of their copper, and of their brass and their iron; and a fifth part of their fatlings; and also a fifth part of all their grain.

[Guest joepalmeto]

BTW what is a ziff?

I thought you are/were LDS. Sorry if my obscure Mormon reference stumped you. I think I must have had a neas stuck in my throat when I wrote it.

Gad, that was as funny as a joke told over Hinkley's tree stump pulpit in the great and spacious T.V. studio during general conference.

I did not realize you were making up words like ziff, and neas like old Joe Smith did when he was writing his fantasy novel.

[Guest johnny_cat]

Gad, that was as funny as a joke told over Hinkley's tree stump pulpit in the great and spacious T.V. studio during general conference.

I did not realize you were making up words like ziff, and neas like old Joe Smith did when he was writing his fantasy novel.

Well, what can you expect from a cafeteria Mormon?

[erichard]

What did God/Joseph Smith accomplish with polygamy that could not have been accomplished via monagamy with the D&C 132 (whenever it became official)?

The coming of Zion and its laws can only be accomplished by leaving the present babylonian laws and learning to live by the Laws given by revelation from the LORD. If one does not believe that, they should take their D&C and throw it in the garbage can.

D&C 132 reveals a "Patriarchy" under the government of Christ. Patriarchy is also clearly taught in the Old and New Testaments. Thus, righteous Patriarchy is a fundamental part of the "Christarchy" that will be Zion. Polygyny is a common aspect of any Patriarchy, and parts of D&C 132 supports this fact.

If you are praying for the Lord's kingdom to come, you are praying for Christ-centered Patriarchy and at least some polygyny. If you hate these principles, then you are anti-Christ, whether you realize it or not. The present laws against polygyny (when done responsibly) are openly Anti-Christ laws.

In Patriarchy the family is a level of government, and the husband is the head of that government. The State of Utah can have only one government over it, but the United States government can and does have many States under its laws. Likewise, the husband can have more than one wife under his government, but the wife can only have one husband.

Having marriage be a political contract besides being a social relationship occurs among royalty. The Lord's marriage law establishes His people as royalty-- but a royalty that is preparing to rule and reign forever under His leadership-- being Eternally married.

So, when the Lord finds a people willing to live by His laws, and He is able to write ALL His laws in their hearts and inward parts (Jeremiah 31:33) we will find that these people will have a patriarchal family structure with at least some polygyny.

D&C 132:44 clearly suggests polygyny in the case when a woman in the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage loses her husband to adultery. There does not have to be a lot of polygyny to live by D&C 132, but to completely forbid it completely is clearly bad faith.

You might want to read the well documented revelations of Presidents John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff where the Lord continues to require and defend plural marriage under His laws.

Book of the Prophet John Taylor

Book of the Prophet Wilford Woodruff

Richard

[StupidFatHobbit]

Hi erichard,

Polyandry under certain circumstances is implied in verse 41 of section 132:

" ... and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed."

If it were not possible for the woman's being with another man to be approved by God - "appointed unto her by the holy anointing" - that middle clause would have been left out and it would simply read:

"... and if she be with another man she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed."

So the clear implication is that it's quite possible for a woman to be with another man and that not be adultery, IF it has been "appointed unto her by the holy anointing".

Sure sounds like polyandry to me. Maybe what's good for the goose is good for the gander after all, eh?

SFH

[Dr. Shades]

Brought the population of the church up.

Actually, no it didn't. It actually ensured that the LDS population was kept DOWN.

You see, a woman's gestation period is 9 months. Breastfeeding inhibits ovulation, so for most practical purposes her reproductive rate will be much lower, but for this discussion let's just say that a woman can reproduce a maximum of once every 9 months.

Now, it doesn't make a single bit of difference whether the sperm which fertilizes her egg came from a monogamist or a polygamist--she can only reproduce once every 9 months, MAXIMUM.

In a polygamous situation, the male must divide his sexual attentions between X>1 females. Therefore, the chances of his sperm missing her most fertile days are much, much greater than if he was always present--as is the case with monogamy.

So not only is a woman not able to reproduce any more often under polygamy than under monogamy, but her chances of per-ovulation conception are much less as well.

So polygamy did NOT raise the LDS population. For both the reasons listed above, it kept the LDS population DOWN.

[sidewinder]

"In a polygamous situation, the male must divide his sexual attentions between X>1 females."

Yeah but Dr. Shades, isn't it still more fun for the male even though there are less pregnancies?

[Dr. Shades]

Yeah but Dr. Shades, isn't it still more fun for the male even though there are less pregnancies?

Of course. Which was the real reason for polygamy in the first place.

[Golden Tapir]

Dr. Shades:

Now, it doesn't make a single bit of difference whether the sperm which fertilizes her egg came from a monogamist or a polygamist--she can only reproduce once every 9 months, MAXIMUM. (end of quote)

Agree, but a couple of notes on the details:

Well....not EXACTLY EXACTLY.. Some particularly fertile women (couples) have a lesser preg cycle due to pre-mature births.

Also: Women's health suffers under polygamy. You see...A woman's genitals, being internal, develop a complex set of anti-bodies to assist with her health. When she is sharing a partner (or having multiple partners), she increases her exposure to diseases including chlamydia (and so do her male partners). For sexual contacts, Having sex is, like we say: When you have sex with one, you're also having sex with those your partner had sex with. That also tends to lower their reproductive rate. Thus, i believe Polygamy adversely affected women's (physical) health and/or presented mental-emotional problems-challenges INCLUDING/SUCH AS conflicts with other (nomo) family members.

Like the church is telling us NOW, monogamy is the best for our health (and it was back then also).

DW told me so, she's an RN.

[erichard]

Hi erichard,

Polyandry under certain circumstances is implied in verse 41 of section 132:

" ... and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed."

...

In honesty, this verse does not prove that a woman is to be married to two men at the same time. I will study this more however.

My own convictions concerning the seeming polandry of the Prophet includes the understanding given in this recent revelation (with my underlining):

Revelation received July 30, 2003

It is My will that ye write down that which I shall

say unto thee at this time;

2 For it is important that these things shall be

made known, and made plain, that they cannot say

that My servant Joseph Smith sinned in taking the

wives he did.

3 For he took none except that I commanded him,

for I did give unto him many, for was he not

worthy?

4 Yet many he did marry for eternity only, and

these were given unto others for time-- and in

none of this did he sin.

5 For many he did marry for eternity remained

with the men they had married for time, and some

were married for time to others at a later date, that

none would be left destitute.

6 And behold, few understood this principle, and

accused My servant of all manner of wickedness.

7 Yet in all these things he sinned not, for they

were of Me.

8 And few have understood these principles, and

the principle was abandoned.

9 For a woman can be sealed by revelation to a

man for all eternity, yet she can be married to

another for time;

10 Nevertheless, the children she bears shall

belong to the man she is sealed to for eternity.

11 Behold, this is a plain and clear principle, for

these children shall be his if they choose and

accept the truth, and live My commandments.

12 And again I say unto you, that no man shall

take unto himself wives if they have no means to

support them;

13 For whoso doeth this is an infidel, and none

need think that such men that provide not for their

own shall receive them in the eternities.

14 For if a man marry and have issue, and he at

first is able to provide for them, and because of

injury or health is no longer able to provide for

them, then if he has lived a righteous life, he may

look to other sources to help him, and he shall be

justified.

15 But if a man take wives without revelation and

confirmation of the Spirit, and father children with

no thought of how he is to provide for them, and

relies on other sources to provide for them, they

are not his, neither the wives nor the children;

16 For they shall be given to others, and not

belong to these arrogant men in the eternities.

(Second Book of Commandments, Section 231)