Jump to content

Distinct polygamy concerns


Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

Polygamy would make a whole lot more sense to me if a woman could have also had numerous husbands.  Why is that never brought up? 

@juliann brought it up:

On 7/7/2022 at 1:52 PM, juliann said:

Polygamy started with polyandry (see 132:41 where women are allowed to be with another man with a "holy annointing.") 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Polygamy would make a whole lot more sense to me if a woman could have also had numerous husbands.  Why is that never brought up?  Is it only men that can handle more than one spouse?  Are there more righteous women in the next life so men will be harder to find? Because the flip side of that coin is that many men will be without any spouse in the next life. (unless of course, they can marry each other).   Are women incapable of providing for a family?  

You have to be extremely sexist to accept polygamy where only the men can have more than one spouse. I guess the Church has no problem with that.

I think you have to ignore some basic issues of biology to get to the bolded above.

Leaving out any spiritual aspects, there are obvious physical downsides to polyandry that don't exist with polygamy.  Like the woman never knowing who the father of the child was (and the child not knowing who their father was).  Plus, the woman can not increase her matriarchal line through polyandry though a man can increase his line through polygamy.  A woman can only have the number of children she can physically bear, regardless if she marries one man or 37 men.

If children are the main reason for polygamy, then polyandry doesn't provide the same incentive. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Rain said:

Not a single one of us knows. Maybe better off.

I don't either.  It is the benefits that show the value.  Pain without benefits is just torture.

I think those that actually lived polygamy would disagree with you about the lack of benefits.

I think you're making an assumption without the experience to back it up. Monosplaining.

They would likely agree with you about the pain and trial involved.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Polygamy would make a whole lot more sense to me if a woman could have also had numerous husbands.  Why is that never brought up?

It is.  Constantly.  In virtually every polygamy thread on the board.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It is.  Constantly.  In virtually every polygamy thread on the board.

So what is the answer?  Why couldn't women marry multiple men?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, california boy said:

So what is the answer?  Why couldn't women marry multiple men?

There's not a single answer that could be given that wouldn't provoke a negative response. 

So let everyone keep on thinking whatever they want on this.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think you have to ignore some basic issues of biology to get to the bolded above.

Leaving out any spiritual aspects, there are obvious physical downsides to polyandry that don't exist with polygamy.  Like the woman never knowing who the father of the child was (and the child not knowing who their father was).  Plus, the woman can not increase her matriarchal line through polyandry though a man can increase his line through polygamy.  A woman can only have the number of children she can physically bear, regardless if she marries one man or 37 men.

If children are the main reason for polygamy, then polyandry doesn't provide the same incentive. 

Well that is a BIG if.  Since all the information I have read on this subject, there wasn't really an increase in birth rates.  And don't people always bring up that none of Joseph's wives appeared to bear children?  What does that say about God wanting more babies through polygamy.

And what difference does it make if a child doesn't know exactly who his father is.  Perhaps that is even better that way.  Both fathers will love the child as if it is their own.

The biggest issue of polygamy for me was the lying about it.  The second biggest issue is there doesn't seem to be rational explanations for any of this.  

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think you have to ignore some basic issues of biology to get to the bolded above.

Leaving out any spiritual aspects, there are obvious physical downsides to polyandry that don't exist with polygamy.  Like the woman never knowing who the father of the child was (and the child not knowing who their father was).  Plus, the woman can not increase her matriarchal line through polyandry though a man can increase his line through polygamy.  A woman can only have the number of children she can physically bear, regardless if she marries one man or 37 men.

If children are the main reason for polygamy, then polyandry doesn't provide the same incentive. 

If (and I stress IF) the process of eternal increase will work on the same principles, then what would that likely mean for eternal polyandry possibilities?  Perhaps spirit children of a polyandrous woman would not know their Father in Heaven.  Or they'd have more than one God to pray to?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I think those that actually lived polygamy would disagree with you about the lack of benefits.

I think you're making an assumption without the experience to back it up. Monosplaining.

They would likely agree with you about the pain and trial involved.

I said I haven't found the benefits. I'm willing to see there may be some.  I haven't found any yet that couldn't be done in monogamy.  I haven't heard of any that weren't disproved.  So, no.  Not monosplaining.  Just really confused by why we might have it.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

think those that actually lived polygamy would disagree with you about the lack of benefits.

My great great? (Need to refresh my memory on where her place in my pedigree is) grandmother said it was the closest thing to experiencing celestial love she knew.  But at that time her sister wife was an invalid whose child had died in childbirth.  She was required to care for her sister wife and perhaps there was potential for competition for her husband’s attention that they resolved between them well, but it was not originally a love match for her and him as both had been dumped by their fiancés when they traveled west expecting to be followed, but weren’t.  She was the one who pushed him to seek permission and chose her sister wife.  I hope she grew to love him romantically if that made their companionship closer and more valuable to her, but her writing is not that open about those feelings.  They were seen as an ideal family though, even Brigham Young commenting on it when visiting them.  He eventually had three other wives, including two sisters.  One of these days I need to find out if there is more from her later in her life.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

If (and I stress IF) the process of eternal increase will work on the same principles, then what would that likely mean for eternal polyandry possibilities?  Perhaps spirit children of a polyandrous woman would not know their Father in Heaven.  Or they'd have more than one God to pray to?

Times have changed.  It is easy to find out who the father is now.  I find it highly unlikely God couldn’t know.  And it wouldn’t have been that hard in the past for a woman to know as long as she spaced over time who she had sex with so only one husband could be the candidate.  No way to prove it to others who might have believed she slept with others if they were all living together though.  But she would know and if her husbands trusted her and each other, they would know and could tell their children.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Ron go, if you’re still reading this, consider the following:

There are only about 45 minutes of teaching time. You cannot have time to deal with the details. Do the broad brush. Polygamy is an ancient practice.  Goes at least as far back as Abraham, and likely was practiced pre flood. Other Israelites practiced it after the escape from Egypt. We don’t have a lot of detail, but it certainly fell out of favor by Roman times. Romans were monogamists, and dominated Mediterranean culture. 
As part of the restoration of all things, Joseph Smith restored this principle.  Don’t get caught up in the details. Temple sealings were looked at in a very different way in the 1840s than they are now. Did JS practice polygamy?  He did, as did other contemporaries. But the practice was kept secret from the world and many members, because leaders knew what the outside (and even within the church) reaction would be.  Some of the actions and statements by leaders of the time should be seen in this context. It wasn’t until the migration to Utah that the practice became more general and open. That’s because in Utah the numbers of members present dominated society. 
Is the practice of polygamy on an individual level a prerequisite to get to the Celestial Kingdom?  No. That’s absurd. 
 

There is really no way of knowing, in general, how happy people were with polygamy. Probably about as happy as marriage is now. Consider a 50% divorce rate!  Clearly our leaders defended it. It’s biblical so relatively easy to defend.  And then by 1890, the practice was given up due to US laws against it. 
 

That’s about 45 minutes. 

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

Ron go, if you’re still reading this, consider the following:

There are only about 45 minutes of teaching time. You cannot have time to deal with the details. Do the broad brush. Polygamy is an ancient practice.  Goes at least as far back as Abraham, and likely was practiced pre flood. Other Israelites practiced it after the escape from Egypt. We don’t have a lot of detail, but it certainly fell out of favor by Roman times. Romans were monogamists, and dominated Mediterranean culture. 
As part of the restoration of all things, Joseph Smith restored this principle.  Don’t get caught up in the details. Temple sealings were looked at in a very different way in the 1840s than they are now. Did JS practice polygamy?  He did, as did other contemporaries. But the practice was kept secret from the world and many members, because leaders knew what the outside (and even within the church) reaction would be.  Some of the actions and statements by leaders of the time should be seen in this context. It wasn’t until the migration to Utah that the practice became more general and open. That’s because in Utah the numbers of members present dominated society. 
Is the practice of polygamy on an individual level a prerequisite to get to the Celestial Kingdom?  No. That’s absurd. 
 

There is really no way of knowing, in general, how happy people were with polygamy. Probably about as happy as marriage is now. Consider a 50% divorce rate!  Clearly our leaders defended it. It’s biblical so relatively easy to defend.  And then by 1890, the practice was given up due to US laws against it. 
 

That’s about 45 minutes. 

To the bold, it really isn't absurd when prophets have taught that it is so. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Brigham_Young_said_that_the_only_men_who_become_gods_are_those_that_practice_polygamy

Link to comment
On 7/12/2022 at 7:02 PM, SkyRock said:

He is talking about obeying the law and quoting an article of faith.

I condemn the practice of polygamy today.  It is illegal.  If polygamy is legalized, I will still condemn it.  I fully hold that polygamy is not doctrinal today and that anyone who practices it should be excommunicated.  

However, it was doctrinal in the past. Do you believe it was not instituted by God?  

"I think it is not doctrinal" is talking about today.   He didn't say it was wrong in the past.   He immediately pivoted to the legalities.

And he sure didn't say it in General Conference.  I wouldn't rest my hat on that single quote. 

So, again,  do you believe polygamy was instituted by God in the Restoration or not?

LOL.  OK, I'll play. While talking about obeying the law and quoting an article of faith, Pres. Hinckley stated unequivocably that polygamy was not doctrine. 

I've provided a source, now you provide one of Pres Hinckley or any other prophet in this century who has called polygamy "doctrine."  CFR

Link to comment
17 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think you have to ignore some basic issues of biology to get to the bolded above.

Leaving out any spiritual aspects, there are obvious physical downsides to polyandry that don't exist with polygamy.  Like the woman never knowing who the father of the child was (and the child not knowing who their father was).  Plus, the woman can not increase her matriarchal line through polyandry though a man can increase his line through polygamy.  A woman can only have the number of children she can physically bear, regardless if she marries one man or 37 men.

If children are the main reason for polygamy, then polyandry doesn't provide the same incentive. 

But only women produce children. It doesn't matter how many men are involved when you only count the actual producers.  Also, a polyandrous wife would likely have more children than a polygynous wife. I think we still get tied up in this idea that children are only counted as part of the man's progeny in polygynous families.  I'm sure there not being enough men would be a reason, but...that was never a concern in the reverse when it came to polygny. 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, juliann said:

LOL.  OK, I'll play. While talking about obeying the law and quoting an article of faith, Pres. Hinckley stated unequivocably that polygamy was not doctrine. 

I've provided a source, now you provide one of Pres Hinckley or any other prophet in this century who has called polygamy "doctrine."  CFR

You still have not answered the question posed.  Ball is in your court. 

Here it is again: Do you believe polygamy was instituted by God in the Restoration or not?

Link to comment
On 7/13/2022 at 5:34 PM, Teancum said:

Let's make it simple.  My point is not that the 19th century saints messed plural marriage up.  That is what a number of believers said. I think they say it in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance the awfulness that came from Mormon Polygamy creates.  I don't think they messed anything up.  But I don't think God commanded it either.  At the same time I believe those that practiced it and believed it mostly were of the opinion they were practicing it correctly.  But it seems in fashion to toss prior LDS leaders and what they did and taught under the bus when we become uncomfortably with it.  Same thing has happened in regards to the priesthood ban.

 

False dilemmas again. It could come from God and be completely messed up. I think of it like the tries at the United Order. Or, it could have been JS's understanding of what God wanted in tying the human family together through sealilngs. There are more possibilties, it was an extremely complex situation mixed in with societal, political, and social mores of the times. Grunting out did it come from God or NOT stuff is tiresome. 

Link to comment
Just now, SkyRock said:

You still have not answered the question posed.  Ball is in your court. 

Here it is again: Do you believe polygamy was instituted by God in the Restoration or not?

None of your business. That is a faith based question which is against board rules.

CFRs are your business. You do need to respond. You have brushed up the statement of a modern prophet as not being valid. Provide documentation for that rather than opinion. I'll tell you why that will be especially difficult, even though Pres. Hinckley said this in a TV interview, he mysteriously never, ever corrected it, if it was an error. 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Rain said:

I said I haven't found the benefits. I'm willing to see there may be some.  I haven't found any yet that couldn't be done in monogamy.  I haven't heard of any that weren't disproved.  So, no.  Not monosplaining.  Just really confused by why we might have it.

That is the 60,000 dollar question. What IS the benefit of polygamy? Eternally. What is the point? What possible spiritual benefit could there be for multiple wives or husbands?  How does that make anyone more righteous than monogamy? The only possible reason would be is if there are left over men or women. 

I have asked this for over a decade. Crickets.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, juliann said:
Quote

Do you believe polygamy was instituted by God in the Restoration or not?

None of your business. That is a faith based question which is against board rules.

I don't think that question is against board rules at all.

Mocking the beliefs of others, judging their beliefs, proselyting your own beliefs are banned.
But if nobody ever asked anyone their belief on doctrinal issues this board would cease to exist.
But of course, you have the right to decline to answer.  I don't think we can CFR a testimony.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, juliann said:

That is the 60,000 dollar question. What IS the benefit of polygamy? Eternally. What is the point? What possible spiritual benefit could there be for multiple wives or husbands?  How does that make anyone more righteous than monogamy? The only possible reason would be is if there are left over men or women. 

I have asked this for over a decade. Crickets.

You're a better historian than that.
Read the benefits as stated by those that actually lived polygamy, men and women.
I'll take their word for it.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, juliann said:

But only women produce children. It doesn't matter how many men are involved when you only count the actual producers.  Also, a polyandrous wife would likely have more children than a polygynous wife. I think we still get tied up in this idea that children are only counted as part of the man's progeny in polygynous families.  I'm sure there not being enough men would be a reason, but...that was never a concern in the reverse when it came to polygny.

Back when I was trying to find an explanation of the "WHY" behind plural marriage, I read a bunch of books on the subject, and recall a comparison of the number of children born per woman in polygynous versus monogamous families during that era.  The number per woman was significantly higher in the monogamous marriages, and of course births per woman is the limiting factor for population growth. 

What I do not recall reading was whether a higher percentage of the offspring of polygamous marriages remained "faithful".  If so, depending on the specifics, that might have tipped the numbers back in favor of polygyny if "maximizing the number of offspring per woman who stay active in the Church" was the criteria. 

All of that being said, my understanding is that there is no DNA evidence of Joseph Smith having produced offspring by any of his plural wives, which makes me question whether Brigham's concept of plural marriage was the same as Joseph's.

Edited by manol
Link to comment
1 hour ago, juliann said:

False dilemmas again. It could come from God and be completely messed up. I think of it like the tries at the United Order. Or, it could have been JS's understanding of what God wanted in tying the human family together through sealilngs. There are more possibilties, it was an extremely complex situation mixed in with societal, political, and social mores of the times. Grunting out did it come from God or NOT stuff is tiresome. 

Look you are the one who seems all exercised over this and you are an outlier from your fellow believers here.  The simplest answer is none of it is from a supposed supernatural god.  It is messy because humans mess things up a because its all from them and there is no god to step in.  It is all made up and trying to make it work in some alleged true religion makes you all jump through the hoops you are jumping through.

Edited by Teancum
Link to comment
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

You're a better historian than that.
Read the benefits as stated by those that actually lived polygamy, men and women.
I'll take their word for it.

You are an admitted fundamentalist. There are just as many negative accounts, probably far more, than positive. You seriously need to stop grasping at straws. It doesn’t work now that women’s diaries are being researched. Also, the divorce rate in polygamist marriages makes your claim specious. 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Look you are the one who seems all exercised over this and you are an outlier from your fellow believers here.  The simplest answer is non of it is from a supposed supernatural god.  It is messy because humans mess things up a because its all from them and there is no god to step in.

You mean I’m emotional, eh. It’s only a matter of time before that starts…

That is such a question begging summation it can’t be answered. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...