Jump to content

Time to Legalize Polygamy?


Recommended Posts

On 10/26/2022 at 6:12 PM, Tacenda said:

If someone like Patrick Mason doesn't believe polygamy was from God, I can't see it being okay for the lds to have to live that again. 

What gives Brother Mason such power? Has he not read Ja’aqov ben Levi’s words? He set the standard by which polygamy may come from God, not Brother Mason.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
On 10/29/2022 at 3:03 PM, Bernard Gui said:

What gives Brother Mason such power? Has he not read Ja’aqov ben Levi’s words? He set the standard by which polygamy may come from God, not Brother Mason.

Take that back I give this lady mad respect, worth every minute of everyone's time to watch it! Back track here, I haven't watched in full though. Added: finished, worth every moment of everyone's time. :)

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Take that back I give this lady mad respect, worth every minute of everyone's time to watch it! Back track here, I haven't watched in full though. Added: finished, worth every moment of everyone's time. :)

 

I don’t buy it but then I am one of those perverse weirdos who thinks polygamy would be hard but is not inherently destructive. I have also navigated being in two romantic relationships at the same time (with both of them knowing about each other).

Link to comment
On 10/26/2022 at 2:59 PM, nuclearfuels said:
Due to declining demographics (Japan's robot babies, herbivore men, etc. whichare reflective not of Japan only but worldwide), is it perhaps time to legalize, normalize, and re-institute this:
 
 
*Thanks for your patience, Mods. I don't view this as political but last days, demographics, and "take your pills" categorizable 

If it's a demographic concern, then it's polyandry that should be legalized - that's more likely to result in more pregnancies than polygamy. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Eschaton said:

If it's a demographic concern, then it's polyandry that should be legalized - that's more likely to result in more pregnancies than polygamy. 

Polygamy is the general term for more than 1 partner. Polyandry is a subset of polygamy. So I assume you're saying that polyandry produces more pregnancies than polygyny.

Edited by JustAnAustralian
Link to comment
38 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Polygamy is the general term for more than 1 partner. Polyandry is a subset of polygamy. So I assume you're saying that polyandry produces more pregnancies than polygyny.

Which is not necessarily true.

The demographics that led to that idea involve illegal polygamy.  Of course there are less children when Church leaders couldn't see there wives.

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Polygamy is the general term for more than 1 partner. Polyandry is a subset of polygamy. So I assume you're saying that polyandry produces more pregnancies than polygyny.

I am not sure that is accurate though as while it likely raises the rate for any woman in the relationship assuming she is having more sexual encounters and if one spouse has fertility issues, another likely won’t, there would also likely be less women marrying, as desirable males might be willing to share a high status female. 
 

Unless you have studies showing birth rates go up?  I would be interested in such as not something I have researched. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Which is not necessarily true.

The demographics that led to that idea involve illegal polygamy.  Of course there are less children when Church leaders couldn't see there wives.

It is true, iirc, for where polygyny is legal, such as in some Muslim countries.  Also infant mortality rates go up to for wives other than the first one, contributing to lower numbers as well. 

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

No idea. I'd be interested in seeing something too. 

Limited opportunities to study it unfortunately, but it may not even raise it for an individual woman (does a household have both married and unmarried adult women living there? I am guessing it’s likely) with no increase in household birth rates and my speculation that polyandry would lower it overall in a community due to less women getting married and therefore having children appears to be borne out for one group:

A survey of 232 households of the Mosuo minority group in Yunnan Province, People's Republic of China, suggested that polyandrous matriarchy did not raise the birth rate per household, but lowered the community birth rate by restricting many women's chances of marrying. The results imply that tolerance by the national government of polyandry within certain minority groups (e.g. Mosuos and Tibetans) will not prevent but may aid the attainment of zero population growth by China in the twenty-first century.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1939297/

And it’s not like the Chinese government is going to get upset at the slow disappearance of a couple of minorities.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Which is not necessarily true.

The demographics that led to that idea involve illegal polygamy.  Of course there are less children when Church leaders couldn't see there wives.

The more women mate, the more likely they are to get pregnant. With polygyny the male is mating a lot, but each individual woman in the relationship is going to be mating less often than she would if she were married to multiple men. Or perhaps less than even a single man, depending on the number of wives in the relationships. 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Calm said:

It is true, iirc, for where polygyny is legal, such as in some Muslim countries.  Also infant mortality rates go up to for wives other than the first one, contributing to lower numbers as well. 

Yet fundamentalists seem to have more children per wife than monogamists.  🤷

Link to comment
On 10/31/2022 at 10:42 AM, Eschaton said:

If it's a demographic concern, then it's polyandry that should be legalized - that's more likely to result in more pregnancies than polygamy. 

Just do the group marriage thing and call it a day.

Link to comment

Plural marriage should not be legalized, but using the arguments that won the SSM battle, there are no real impediments to overcome. 

There is nothing magical about the number 2. Lots of people have multiple partners already. 

To quote some folks, “Why do we need a piece of paper?

Unless this is a real concern: …

”…we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”

Since this warning has been blithely dismissed by many people in the world including some here, I doubt it will give those folks any pause with any new expansions. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

That probably has a lot to do with birth control.

Probably.

My point is the assumption that a man with one wife will have more children with her than a polygamist would have with each individual wife is just that, an assumption.

There are too many variables to make such a blanket claim.  Birth control, proximity, legal status, financial status, opportunity, desire for children.

We assume this claim is statistical fact but I doubt it.

All things being equal a man can have one child with a wife every couple of years.  The number of wives don't change that.  The variables do.

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Unless this is a real concern: …

”…we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”

To group polygamy as a practice into this category doesn't exactly increase faith in the prophets who practiced it.  Yes polyamorous relationships are a long way from divinely directed plural marriage.  But to include plural relationships in the disintegration category incorrectly puts Joseph, Brigham and others in a sinful practice.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Managing one romantic relationship is complicated enough! But to each their own

It takes a certain mindset. Trying to make it the cultural norm would probably be disastrous.

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Unless this is a real concern: …

”…we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”

Since this warning has been blithely dismissed by many people in the world including some here, I doubt it will give those folks any pause with any new expansions. 

I could never figure out if the ancient prophets were talking about calamities due to familial disintegration or just more general calamities because there aren’t a lot of old timey scriptures concerned about families collapsing.

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Probably.

My point is the assumption that a man with one wife will have more children with her than a polygamist would have with each individual wife is just that, an assumption.

There are too many variables to make such a blanket claim.  Birth control, proximity, legal status, financial status, opportunity, desire for children.

We assume this claim is statistical fact but I doubt it.

All things being equal a man can have one child with a wife every couple of years.  The number of wives don't change that.  The variables do.

When having more children was often an economic benefit (CHEAP LABOR!) the calculus changes considerably. Even still it wasn’t generally sustainable. In most societies that practiced polygyny it was a thing for the elite. In many cases it was as much about guaranteeing access to an heir. Henry VIII probably wouldn’t have pushed for the Anglican faith if he could have just kept having more wives.

There are also drop off points where it stops making any sense. It is unlikely Solomon with 700 wives and 300 concubines could father 1,000 children every two or three years.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It is unlikely Solomon with 700 wives and 300 concubines could father 1,000 children every two or three years.

Could have been fun trying... ;)

But of course you're right.
Joseph, Brigham, and Heber all had 30+ wives.  But many of them were widows, lived far away from their husbands, etc.
It goes back to the Joseph having no children in polygamy argument.  None of his wives except Emma lived with him for longer than a few months, he spent a lot of time in meetings, in hiding, and even in jail.
If he had openly lived in multiple homes with all his wives and spent time with each of them, and lived for another decade  I have little doubt he would have had dozens more children.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

To group polygamy as a practice into this category doesn't exactly increase faith in the prophets who practiced it.  Yes polyamorous relationships are a long way from divinely directed plural marriage.  But to include plural relationships in the disintegration category incorrectly puts Joseph, Brigham and others in a sinful practice.

Unless, of course, they were commanded as per Jacob. And consider the context of this discussion.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Unless, of course, they were commanded as per Jacob. And consider the context of this discussion.

I am considering the context of this discussion and I know what you are referring to.
Legalizing polygamy shouldn't be a free for all for all polyamorous relationships.  Of course that's true.

But I also reject the idea that polygamy as lived by Joseph and Brigham is sinful, evil, or disintegrating to the family, unless it's approved by God.
The practice requires God's approval, but God can't approve a sinful practice.  There can be nothing inherently sinful or harmful to the family in polygamy or else God couldn't approve of it.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Could have been fun trying... ;)

But of course you're right.
Joseph, Brigham, and Heber all had 30+ wives.  But many of them were widows, lived far away from their husbands, etc.
It goes back to the Joseph having no children in polygamy argument.  None of his wives except Emma lived with him for longer than a few months, he spent a lot of time in meetings, in hiding, and even in jail.
If he had openly lived in multiple homes with all his wives and spent time with each of them, and lived for another decade  I have little doubt he would have had dozens more children.

Then there is this…

Quote

Brigham Young JOD 9:31 April 7, 1861

I shall begin upon the doctrine so much beloved by Saint and sinner, and that is the plurality of women. The Saints like a plurality of wives, and the sinners like a plurality of men and women. I will say to the sisters that I have heard but very few women, and not a great many men, ever talk sensibly upon the plurality of wives. When they begin to talk about it, they exhibit, almost without an exception, passion instead of principle.

Were we to appeal to passions of the people, we should promote the doctrine of a plurality of men and of women. But when we address ourselves to the Saints of the Most High God, it is very different and in a different light. It is for my sisters to be mothers of holy men and holy women—to receive and conceive in the name and by the power of the Holy Ghost—to bring forth their fruits to the praise and honor of the God of heaven. But what are the people doing here? “I want another wife,” and almost universally passion is exhibited instead of principle. 

If the plurality of wives is to pander to the low passions of men and women, the sooner it is abolished the better. “How far would you go in abolishing it?” I would say, if the Lord should reveal that it is his will to go so far as to become a Shaking Quaker, Amen to it, and let the sexes have no connection. If so far as for a man to have but one wife, let it be so. The word and will of the Lord is what I want—the will and mind of God. He has revealed his mind and will.


The time is coming when the Lord is going to raise up a holy nation. He will bring up a royal Priesthood upon the earth, and he has introduced a plurality of wives for that express purpose, and not to gratify lustful passion in the least. I would rather take my valise in my hand today, and never see a wife or a child again, and preach the Gospel until I go into the grave, than to live as I do, unless God commands it. I never entered into the order of plurality of wives to gratify passion. And were I now asked whether I desired and wanted another wife, my reply would be, It should be one by whom the Spirit will bring forth noble children. I am almost sixty years old; and if I now live for passion, I pray the Lord Almighty to take my life from the earth.

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment

So what is meant here by a plurality of men and a plurality of women in your view?  Just more babies being born and raised to adulthood?  Polyandry and polygyny?  Something else?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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