Distinct polygamy concerns

[Rain]

8 hours ago, manol said:

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". 

I'm not sure if you can do it just by percentage can you?  

For example if you have 10 women in monogamous marriages and they each have 5 kids (50 total) and you have 10 women in polygamous marriages and the each have 4 kids (40 total).  

If 50% of mono marriages stay faithful (25), but 60% of poly stay faithful (24) then the % is higher for polygamous, but total kids staying faithful is higher in monogamous.

So it would really depend on what you are wanting when you are looking at the benefits. If it were sustainable I think that polygamy wins, but since it isn't you really have to figure out just what benefit you are trying to get.

8 hours ago, manol said:

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.

 

 

[manol]

21 minutes ago, Rain said:

I'm not sure if you can do it just by percentage can you?  

For example if you have 10 women in monogamous marriages and they each have 5 kids (50 total) and you have 10 women in polygamous marriages and the each have 4 kids (40 total).  

If 50% of mono marriages stay faithful (25), but 60% of poly stay faithful (24) then the % is higher for polygamous, but total kids staying faithful is higher in monogamous.

So it would really depend on what you are wanting when you are looking at the benefits. If it were sustainable I think that polygamy wins, but since it isn't you really have to figure out just what benefit you are trying to get.

Agreed!

I didn't feel like walking through the math for different possible scenarios, so I short-cutted and said "depending on the specifics".

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

As I said Brigham, John, Wilford etc systematized the principles and ordinances.

I see the changing of sealing to parents and children only instead of church leaders as more than systematizing.

Edited July 16, 2022 by Calm

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That’s pretty messed up. 

Same thought I had. 

[mrmarklin]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

If you are researching ancient texts, you research. And for solid research, you need the original language. You do it with methodology like critical source, text, literary, etc. criticism. You are merely cherry picking verses and pretending that is meaningful.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, you wanted purpose and I gave it to you. You don’t have to believe the scriptures I quoted. And I’m sorry I don’t read or write Hebrew so I can’t quote the original language.  🙄

[SkyRock]

23 hours ago, juliann said:

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. 

You asked me to CFR on your own words, not mine.  You don't get to pose a question and ask someone else for references.

I stated, "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."

You stated, "now you provide one of Pres Hinckley or any other prophet in this century who has called polygamy "doctrine."  CFR"

I did not say they had.  You do not get to make a statement and demand someone else provide references about it. 

Of course,  there has not been a single talk in general conference regarding plural marriage this century, for or against or regarding the doctrine, as it hasn't been current doctrine since the Manifesto.  

It has been the opposite, as church leaders have consistently rejected any current practice.  The Gospel Topic Essay on it covers the topic reasonable well. 

Church leaders for a century have taught it isn't current doctrine. 

Your refusal to answer such a simple question would indicate you reject the divine inspiration of plural marriage.  

[MustardSeed]

2 minutes ago, SkyRock said:

you reject the divine inspiration of plural marriage.  

for what it's worth, I reject it.  I have had no divine inspiration to suggest it was divinely inspired. I believe in the right to ask for confirmation on anything preached by anyone. 

[SkyRock]

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

for what it's worth, I reject it.  I have had no divine inspiration to suggest it was divinely inspired. I believe in the right to ask for confirmation on anything preached by anyone. 

Thanks for being honest about that.   I wish more people who honestly state their beliefs.

There are many gospel questions that people have concerns about or disagree with today.   I have not concerns with the members who follow the latest words without thinking and pondering and praying than I do otherwise.

[juliann]

3 hours ago, SkyRock said:

You asked me to CFR on your own words, not mine.  You don't get to pose a question and ask someone else for references.

I stated, "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."

You stated, "now you provide one of Pres Hinckley or any other prophet in this century who has called polygamy "doctrine."  CFR"

I did not say they had.  You do not get to make a statement and demand someone else provide references about it. 

Of course,  there has not been a single talk in general conference regarding plural marriage this century, for or against or regarding the doctrine, as it hasn't been current doctrine since the Manifesto.  

It has been the opposite, as church leaders have consistently rejected any current practice.  The Gospel Topic Essay on it covers the topic reasonable well. 

Church leaders for a century have taught it isn't current doctrine. 

Your refusal to answer such a simple question would indicate you reject the divine inspiration of plural marriage.  

If you are going to come in here and demand responses to personal questions, you do need to understand the culture and rules of this board. I'll try to make it simpler.

You claimed that Pres. Hinckley's statement was not up to snuff because it was said in a TV interview. You now need to substantiate that he said something different to make your claim meaningful. You have now moved the goal posts to say he did mean it. Whether it was "doctrinal" then is irrelevant. It was, of course, treated as doctrine then. No one would have done it otherwise. But I have never made that an issue. My argument is with those who insist it is unchanging doctrine. And I have not been unclear about that. 

You won't do well here if you attempt to change the discussion whenever you are asked to document your assertions. 

Edited July 16, 2022 by juliann

[juliann]

16 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, you wanted purpose and I gave it to you. You don’t have to believe the scriptures I quoted. And I’m sorry I don’t read or write Hebrew so I can’t quote the original language.  🙄

Knock it off. Your scriptures had nothing to do with what I am talking about, 19th century polygamy and current beliefs. You are pretending that ancient scripture is the same thing without giving any support for that. Until you do, you have not provided any purpose for polygamy, only ancient stories in an era where it was unremarkable. 

[SkyRock]

28 minutes ago, juliann said:

Whether it was "doctrinal" then is irrelevant. It was, of course, treated as doctrine then. No one would have done it otherwise. But I have never made that an issue. My argument is with those who insist it is unchanging doctrine. And I have not been unclear about that. 

It isn't irrelevant except to you.   Plenty of people had problem with plural marriage in the 19th century.  Many left the church over it and claimed it was uninspired.  

We have numerous people who have left the church over the last 30 years over the idea that it was not inspired and an invention of BY.

[Nofear]

19 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

.. Like 50% of marriages today end in divorce. ...

Just a heads up, an oft repeated statistic that was never ever really true. It might also be noted that the rate is declining from its peak a few decades ago too.
https://www.goldbergjones-or.com/divorce/50-divorce-rate-lie/

On a lighter note, I learned a few factoids not relevant to the discussion: https://www.goldbergjones-or.com/divorce/10-odd-divorce-laws-from-around-the-world/

 

[Calm]

For those too lazy to click….;) (because we all have those days and I think this is important)

Quote

In reality, the 50% divorce rate was never the reality. This number is based on projections from the 1970s that it eventually would get that high. But it never did.

Projections held that if two percent of them continued to divorce each year, over the ensuing decades, the numbers would reach 50% or even higher.

The number itself was never a static amount or representative of current marriages. The projections simply suggested it could get that high if this one trend continued.

It’s information that was widely misinterpreted and misquoted. Over time, it was shared so often, with such an air of authority, we collectively stopped questioning it.

 

Quote

According to these numbers, 39% of men with a high school education or below will divorce in their lifetimes. The same is true of 37% of women.

With a college education, the divorce rate drops substantially, to 28% for men and 29% for women. Those numbers hold fairly steady for advanced degrees, landing at 26% for men and 30% for women.…

The divorce rate fluctuates wildly across racial boundaries:

36% of white men and 38% of white women will dissolve a marriage.

Those numbers are slightly higher for Black men and women, who both clocked in at 42%.

Hispanic men and women are less likely to divorce, at 27% for men and 30% for women.

Members of Asian communities are least likely to divorce, with just 16% of men and 18% of women ending marriages.

Native American population is the most likely, with 44% of men and 45% of women ending a union.

 

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Knock it off. Your scriptures had nothing to do with what I am talking about, 19th century polygamy and current beliefs. You are pretending that ancient scripture is the same thing without giving any support for that. Until you do, you have not provided any purpose for polygamy, only ancient stories in an era where it was unremarkable. 

Given the subjective nature of interpreting history, I wish you well in your continued evaluation of extra-scriptural, historical evidence concerning the psychological, social and economic impacts of plural marriage in the Church during the timeframe within which it was practiced under ecclesiastical sanction (leaving the spiritual considerations aside).

Edited July 16, 2022 by CV75

[mrmarklin]

8 hours ago, juliann said:

Knock it off. Your scriptures had nothing to do with what I am talking about, 19th century polygamy and current beliefs. You are pretending that ancient scripture is the same thing without giving any support for that. Until you do, you have not provided any purpose for polygamy, only ancient stories in an era where it was unremarkable. 

Move the goalposts much?🙂

I’ll submit that the purposes of God have not changed ever. Not even in the nineteenth century.  I have no idea what you’re talking about. 🙄

Edited July 17, 2022 by mrmarklin

[mrmarklin]

On 7/15/2022 at 4:14 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That’s pretty messed up. 

You’re correct. Her opposition to polygamy is completely out of line. Disobeying God’s commands is totally wrong. 
 

Oh, you meant………….🤫

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

You’re correct. Her opposition to polygamy is completely out of line. Disobeying God’s commands is totally wrong. 
 

Oh, you meant………….🤫

Imagine your wife was insecure about her weight and then you brag about jokingly calling her a fatty all the time. There is nothing to say but that is seriously messed up. 

[jcake]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Imagine your wife was insecure about her weight and then you brag about jokingly calling her a fatty all the time. There is nothing to say but that is seriously messed up. 

Yes, I have known number of women who have told me their husbands use polygamy to inflict emotional pain and insecurity.  The joke may be on them when in the eternities, the men who took pleasure in this torment, find themselves losing good wives to men who will treasure them and are not amused by hurting them. Just a thought.

Edited July 17, 2022 by jcake
grammar

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 minutes ago, jcake said:

Yes, I have known number of women who have told me their husbands use polygamy to inflict emotional pain and insecurity.  The joke may be on them when in the eternities, the men who took pleasure in this torment, find themselves losing good wives to a man who will treasure them and are not amused by hurting them. Just a thought.

I know your heart is in the right place, but this kind of perpetuates the problematic idea of a woman being a prize awarded to a good man. I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way, but it gave off those vibes to me. Ymmv. 

[carbon dioxide]

20 hours ago, SkyRock said:

It isn't irrelevant except to you.   Plenty of people had problem with plural marriage in the 19th century.  Many left the church over it and claimed it was uninspired.  

We have numerous people who have left the church over the last 30 years over the idea that it was not inspired and an invention of BY.

The Church has not done a good job on the subject.  Ignoring problems does not make them go away but it does allow others to describe the issues in their own way which may be inaccurate.  Polygamy is a subject that offends modern western values.  So even when people read about polygamy in the Old Testament, they interpret it with in that framework.  So we see things like 'God only tolerated it".   There are other places in the world that have far fewer issues with polygamy. My coworker from African mentioned to me somebody he knows in Africa that has 7 wives.  It is still going on today and the subject does not offend them nearly as much as they have not been westernized in their view of things.

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The Church has not done a good job on the subject.  Ignoring problems does not make them go away but it does allow others to describe the issues in their own way which may be inaccurate.  Polygamy is a subject that offends modern western values.  So even when people read about polygamy in the Old Testament, they interpret it with in that framework.  So we see things like 'God only tolerated it".   There are other places in the world that have far fewer issues with polygamy. My coworker from African mentioned to me somebody he knows in Africa that has 7 wives.  It is still going on today and the subject does not offend them nearly as much as they have not been westernized in their view of things.

Monogamy was institutionalized by the Greeks and Romans.  It was "western civilization" that made monogamy the traditional marriage.  No such normalcy existed until the pagan nations mandated it.

And in Christ's day they were under Roman and Greek rule.

Prior to that influence there was no prohibition, nothing offensive.

Edited July 17, 2022 by JLHPROF

[jcake]

ted 1 hour ago

  2 hours ago, jcake said:

Yes, I have known number of women who have told me their husbands use polygamy to inflict emotional pain and insecurity.  The joke may be on them when in the eternities, the men who took pleasure in this torment, find themselves losing good wives to a man who will treasure them and are not amused by hurting them. Just a thought.

I know your heart is in the right place, but this kind of perpetuates the problematic idea of a woman being a prize awarded to a good man. I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way, but it gave off those vibes to me. Ymmv. 

1

You are right, I was just using old ideas against old ideas.  But I'm glad you noted this.

•  
• Quote

[Teancum]

On 7/15/2022 at 4:10 PM, juliann said:

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. 

No not emotional.  Being exercised over something does not equate to emotional.  But whatever. Work it out for yourself in whatever way is best.  However, its clear your position on polygamy is an outlier.  Smac summations I think really show where polygamy stands historically as well as today for the Church.  Yours do not. 

I worked it out for myself long ago and believe my position on polygamy is the accurate one.

 

[Amulek]

23 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Imagine your wife was insecure about her weight and then you brag about jokingly calling her a fatty all the time. There is nothing to say but that is seriously messed up. 

Seriously. Which is why I always tell my wife, who is also no fan of polygamy, that I support her completely, and if something should ever happen to her (God forbid) that I promise to only marry a trophy wife for time only.

 

[Teancum]

On 7/15/2022 at 10:35 AM, mrmarklin said:

Is the practice of polygamy on an individual level a prerequisite to get to the Celestial Kingdom?  No. That’s absurd. 
 

So Brigham Young was wrong when he said:

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy