Polygamy

[Golden Tapir]

You may not like polygamy (or the scholarship at BYU,for that matter) but it doesn't change the fact God instituted it and condones it.

DrF:

Is there any record of pre-LDS sanctioning of 'true' polygamy in the Bible or otherwise authenticated? I don't think concubines are the same. I sure would like to have been around in the early days of the church to get an accurate read on how P 'worked' or didn't; I'm sure there were plenty of both.

[drfatguy]

GT,

Read 1Sam 12. God gave David his wives and took them back. Abraham was a Friend of God (see John 15:15) after he married more than one wife, (whatever a concubine is). I believe there would be more problems with a polygamous marriage because the problems caused in a monogamous marriage come from the dynamics of the personalities. More personalities, more problems, just the way it is. Monogamy has a terrible track record in the 20th and 21st centuries. One could write as many loneliness books concerning women of this time frame as one could about the women of the polygamy time frame.

To summerize, We don't have a definite verse to say this is where God insituted polygamy, but more than enough to demonstrate it could have been sanctioned. Neither polygamy nor monogamy have a great track record. Marriage as an institution has been a dismal failure for the most part. Whether we continue to slam the Church for practicing polygamy or not we must realize this comes from our background now and the prejudices it causes. If we were to look at the failure of monogamy we shouldn't marry at all, but we do, and I wonder why?!!

Dr Fatguy

[Del March]

Just a detail:

As far as I know, polygamy is NOT the union of one man and several women. It is the multiple unions of one man with several women.

To put it differently:

It's not : 1+x

It's : (1+1) * x

Or:

It's not : "I, John, take you, Jane, and Mary, and Laura, and Jennifer, as my wives"

Its: "I, John, take you, Jane, as my wife" and "I, John, take you, Mary, as my wife" and so on.

Am I mistaken? Are there cases of men marrying several women at the same time? Or do I misunderstand polygamy completely?

The difference might not seem important to some, but it is essential for me as a woman. For me, polygamy is not about one man marrying a pack of women. It's about several female individuals marrying the same male individual.

Del

[tubaloth]

I just post this again what the LDS church Official view is on Polygamy. People can agree with it or not, that is up to them.

the Churches Official stand is on Polygamy

[USU78]

This:

I can't make the definitive argument that marriage should be constrainied to that of between a man and a woman, but plural marriage has indeed long been considered, by every industrialized nation, a deplorable practice that degrades women and (to add yet another personal opinion) utterly desanctifies the institution of love -- upon which marriage is based.

is just too rich!

1. That we LDS should follow the moral leadership of France and Germany (not to mention China) is laughable. By what standard does industrialized = moral?

2. That polygyny is degrading to women, while perhaps true in specific instances, does not necessarily hold generally or in specific instances. I submit it may well be degrading, but because of the practices of the individuals involved.

3. It is all well and good to decry polygyny as practiced, since we have so few examples to look at and it's so strange to us, but who are we to make moral judgments of those who accept it as a divine calling? Are we so xenophobic (and morally superior) that we cannot allow for a religious practice with which we do not agree?

4. "The institution of [romantic] love" was unheard of before the Middle Ages. Did everybody who coupled, bore children, and stayed wed, either in monogamous or polygamous relationship, prior to that time commit sin because romantic love had nothing to do with it?

[Del March]

1.  That we LDS should follow the moral leadership of France and Germany (not to mention China) is laughable.  By what standard does industrialized = moral?

What's wrong exactly with the morality of France or Germany?? I can't talk for China because I don't know them, but France and Germany are very moral countries. I fail to see what your comment meant?

And by the way, I hope you do realise that French and German LDS are expected, in a certain measure, to follow the moral leadership of America? Even though I can't fathom by what standard American=moral...

Del

[USU78]

1.

[Guest Lori]

Have you seen the topic "Could Jospeh Smith be a Fallen Prophet?"  We have been talking a lot about polygamy on this thread this month if you want to read it.

This is an issue that I think is going to start causing some problems for faithful members of our church.  There is a lot of talk going around Relief Society because of Martha Beck's new book.  Women are finding out things about our Prophets that we can't believe.  That's why I am here.  I had no idea about any of the polygamy history.

Lori,

Martha Beck's book is very difficult to take seriously. How many danite groups have you seen in Provo these days? How many ritualistic murders have you read about in the newspaper recently that have the imprint of the Mormon church? How many phone connections are routed through the local LDS churches? How many wild stories does someone get to tell before we stop believing them?

As for plural marriage--we have known about it since the 1850's. It shouldn't be a suprise. Books have been written about this for the past 150 years.

And why do you say "women are finding out?" Don't you really mean "I am finding out?" At least one of the biggest researchers on plural marriage is a woman. The fact that you don't know something shouldn't be turned into a universal truth.

Scott

I should have given more detail on what is happening in my ward. There is an e-mail that has been in circulation among women who have been to the temple with parts of Martha Beck's book in it. It is asking women to speak out against Oprah putting this book on her Book Club list. In the e-mail I read about Joseph having sex with a 14? year old. I can't remember which wife, but it shocked me to read it and I had to immediatly research to find out if it was true. Many women in our church IMO have no idea of anything about polygamy. I was born in the church and have always hated polygamy so I stayed away from learning of it. Now because of the e-mail, women are learning things they didn't know. I know that some women in our church may know about the history but I would bet a lot of money that most don't.

I have not read Martha Beck's book but I did read many parts of it on the internet. She is a gifted writer but the book isn't credible at all. It's not her book that is causing problems in the church, but the e-mail suggesting Joseph had sex with other women. I was sent an e-mail from a good friend who just went to the temple. She said there is a lot of things brewing in the church right now because of this book. (polygamy related) I don't know her evidence for this statement but I can tell you in my ward, all the women I have talked to were sent the e-mail and seemed very uncomfortable about what was in it. I think the e-mail is forcing women to confront what we have tried to push out of our minds.

[truth dancer]

Hey Doc...

Truth Dancer is correct in the establishment of marriage. Love hasn't had much to do with it until recently (even biblically, look at Isaac and Rebekah). We have so many telling us polygamy has to be wrong. We of the west hate polygamy, why? I don't understand. We used this as a method to determine is a culture was civilized (which is why the Europeans during the crusades felt more civilized than their Muslim counterparts). It comes off as narrowness or thought if one states we, as Mormons, were wrong to practice polygamy without stating why. Truth Dancer and I have had some discussions concerning this and haven't been able to determine which is the least educated in this but I doubt either one of us ever thought we would change the other.

To understand the origins of marriage, IN MY OPINION, one must go WAY back to the days of the nomadic tribal groups overtaking the agricultural villages. Women were traded and used to unite tribes, to gain favors with other groups and to strengthen various tribes. There was NOTHING about love or companionship or unity whatsoever AS FAR AS I CAN TELL.

Over time women received more rights depending on if they were wives, concubines or slaves. (I don't think this is disputed).

Men owned women as a possession. The more women the more power. (AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND).

It is my opinion, that the consciousness of the human has developed and evolved to understand that women are human beings. It seems to me that many men have developed compassion and feel uncomfortable with the former treatment of women. TO ME, it is a sign of our continual movement toward greater and deeper unity, love and oneness. I see this growth over millennia as a very holy thing. To me, polygamy is a GIANT step backwards in the continual, deepening of beautiful relationships that are possible. I am not sure if the human was even capable of knowing the possibility of a relationship as is possible for us today. As was mentioned, romantic love didn't even exist until the 12th century. (I'm pretty sure this is not disputed so won't document). Today, I believe that many cringe at the idea of polygamy because it touches an innate sensitivity of those who see women and men as equal human beings deserving the same rights and opportunities as each other, deserving the same respect and care, deserving of the more holy (IMO) relationship that is only possible (IMO) in a balanced, unified relationship.

Just how I see it...

~dancer~

[drfatguy]

Truth Dancer,

What if one could have a balanced unified polygamous relationship? I know, we can what if any question, but this is what I am trying to say, if one were to have a fufilling, loving, sensitive relationship with 6 adults (five women, one man) could this not be more fulfilling? Just a thought.

Dr Fatguy

[Del March]

Another thought is: why do we keep projecting our current, Western sensitivities on people who, 150+ years ago, lived in a society that simply didn't think that way of women??

I don't know about America, but in Europe at that time, women were still considered as life-long minors. They were always under the legal power of a man, be it their father, their husband, or some caretaker. And even though the 19th century is the century of Romantic literature in Europe, it was clearly understood that romantic relationships were most often NOT attained within marriage. There was marriage, and there was romantic love. That is, for those who had the means and the time to even wonder about romantic love in depth.

To most of those women, the concepts of gender equality or female independance were completely alien. Consequently, I would think that polygamy would not have hurt them for the same reasons as it can hurt modern women.

If we agree that the concept of love and marriage has grown by leaps and bounds in the last century, then let's keep LDS polygamy in perspective and let's stop applying our concept to their situation.

Del

[Guest Lori]

Another thought is: why do we keep projecting our current, Western sensitivities on people who, 150+ years ago, lived in a society that simply didn't think that way of women??

I don't know about America, but in Europe at that time, women were still considered as life-long minors. They were always under the legal power of a man, be it their father, their husband, or some caretaker. And even though the 19th century is the century of Romantic literature in Europe, it was clearly understood that romantic relationships were most often NOT attained within marriage. There was marriage, and there was romantic love. That is, for those who had the means and the time to even wonder about romantic love in depth.

To most of those women, the concepts of gender equality or female independance were completely alien. Consequently, I would think that polygamy would not have hurt them for the same reasons as it can hurt modern women.

If we agree that the concept of love and marriage has grown by leaps and bounds in the last century, then let's keep LDS polygamy in perspective and let's stop applying our concept to their situation.

Del

If what you just stated is true, then why did so many people persecute the saints over it and why was it put to a stop by our government? Also, why did so many people leave the church over polygamy if we are just putting our current view of marriage on it? Was Nephi a polygamist? Isn't he considered one of the great prophets?

There is no way you can convince me that our opposition of polygamy comes from our current feeling of equality among women and men. It was just as repulsive to the saints that were commanded to practice it back then as it is today. That's why so many left the church. The women that decided to enter it did so for religous purposes: They believed anything Joseph revealed came from God, some had visions of Celestial marriage, some had personal revelation they should do it, and many did it because they were afraid if they didn't they were breaking a commandment that would cost them their exaltation. I think we have all read the books I have so I won't document unless you ask for it.

Polygamy is a moral problem as well as a destruction of relationship problem. This has nothing to do with our current "Western" ideas of how marriage should be or you will have to throw out everything said in the Book of Mormon about monogamy being the Lord's standard.

[helix]

IN MY OPINION, the history of marriage is a bit more complex than this.  I personally don't think it started out having much of anything to do with love.

I do believe however that humankind has evolved to a place where we have deep emotions of romantic love and compassion and with these developments came the beauty of a union between two people. 

Just my opinion,

Heh, I don't mind opinion debates. I just got very annoyed by the trolling manner in which The Humanist barged on in here stating what he believes is absolute truth, claiming Mormonism is false because he said so, and then quickly shifting to say it was merely an opinion.

Again, as I said, The Humanist also didn't really debate opinions, he just arrogantly stated his. That's obnoxious, boring, and a waste of time. Your post was funny and more insightful.

[Del March]

You misunderstood me, Lori.

I wasn't talking about whether people then liked polygamy any better than we do now. They didn't.

What I was arguing against is the concept that they already all equated marriage with love and equality like we do now. They didn't.

They didn't like polygamy any more than we do. But their reasons were different. And I think they revolved around one major point: polygamy was a major social taboo. It was one of those things that you just don't do.

I have no problem accepting the fact that they didn't like polygamy. But I object to any projection of why WE don't like polygamy on them. Many of them didn't see marriage the way we do, and consequently I doubt they had the same objections to polygamy as we do.

Del

[truth dancer]

Hey Doc...

What if one could have a balanced unified polygamous relationship? I know, we can what if any question, but this is what I am trying to say, if one were to have a fufilling, loving, sensitive relationship with 6 adults (five women, one man) could this not be more fulfilling? Just a thought.

Fulfilling for whom? And what would it mean to be fulfilled?

IN MY OPINION....If a man wants multiple sexual partners then this form of relationship would be VERY fulfilling...much more so than a monogamous one that is for sure. If a man wants a close, emotionally fulfilling, deep unified relationship then it seems quite impossible to have the time, energy, inclination with multiple partners.

IN MY OPINION.....If a woman doesn't care much for men and finds fulfillment mostly with women then living with six other women and having an occasional visit from her husband might be great. OTOH, if a woman enjoys the emotional, sexual, close, passionate, unified relationship then she most likely wouldn't find a polygamous relationship very fulfilling.

I think there are all sorts of alternative relationships/partnerships that can be great for those involved. I know some pretty bizarre types of situations that are fulfilling to those who participate. This is not really the issue for me.

To me it goes beyond this... My difficulty is more with the equality, balance, harmony, respect, honor, the evolving depth of human consciousness, the desire of the universe, etc. etc. etc.

Just my opinion...

~dancer~

[Guest Lori]

Another thought is: why do we keep projecting our current, Western sensitivities on people who, 150+ years ago, lived in a society that simply didn't think that way of women??

I don't know about America, but in Europe at that time, women were still considered as life-long minors. They were always under the legal power of a man, be it their father, their husband, or some caretaker. And even though the 19th century is the century of Romantic literature in Europe, it was clearly understood that romantic relationships were most often NOT attained within marriage. There was marriage, and there was romantic love. That is, for those who had the means and the time to even wonder about romantic love in depth.

To most of those women, the concepts of gender equality or female independance were completely alien. Consequently, I would think that polygamy would not have hurt them for the same reasons as it can hurt modern women.

If we agree that the concept of love and marriage has grown by leaps and bounds in the last century, then let's keep LDS polygamy in perspective and let's stop applying our concept to their situation.

Del

If what you just stated is true, then why did so many people persecute the saints over it and why was it put to a stop by our government? Also, why did so many people leave the church over polygamy if we are just putting our current view of marriage on it? Was Nephi a polygamist? Isn't he considered one of the great prophets?

There is no way you can convince me that our opposition of polygamy comes from our current feeling of equality among women and men. It was just as repulsive to the saints that were commanded to practice it back then as it is today. That's why so many left the church. The women that decided to enter it did so for religous purposes: They believed anything Joseph revealed came from God, some had visions of Celestial marriage, some had personal revelation they should do it, and many did it because they were afraid if they didn't they were breaking a commandment that would cost them their exaltation. I think we have all read the books I have so I won't document unless you ask for it.

Polygamy is a moral problem as well as a destruction of relationship problem. This has nothing to do with our current "Western" ideas of how marriage should be or you will have to throw out everything said in the Book of Mormon about monogamy being the Lord's standard.

Didn't they still have love for their spouse and desire a family unit that we have today? I have read that women yearned for that realtionship and some were envious of the monogamous marriages in those times.

"Romantic" love is not what monogamous marriage is about. The love shared between one man and one wife goes much deeper than the Romance one feels.

It's not just about the physical intimacy (which is the most sacred expression of that love) but it's about the need for eachother in everything. It's a love that grows each day for that person and deepens the more you live with them. It's about loving that person more than yourself. Our children are a result of this love.

I have a great Aunt and Uncle who portray this bond between 2 people. They were married and faithful to eachother their entire life. They were best friends, lovers, raised a family, and very Christian people. Their realtionship was beautiful to witness and I don't think they had many cross words to eachother their entire marriage. He has passed away and we used to say if he went first it would be better because he would never be able to live a day without her in his life.

Now if you want to throw in another wife into the picture-that would ruin everything beautiful about this couple. It would destroy the sanctity of their marriage and the beauty of their bond. It is not possible to have this with more than wife at the same time. Just like I can't have this with more than one husband.

The reading I have done on polygamy shows the women had to lose feelings for the spouse in order to share him. They had to look at him with reverance and submit to what he commanded. They had to put themselves below him. Sure, they were already not treated as equals prior to polygamy but once in it they were forced to go even lower. These women had desires for monogamy just like we do. How do you know it hurt them less than it would us? Polygamy is not natural.

From everything I have read and continue to read, it was very painful and emotional torture for some.

[Del March]

IN MY OPINION.....If a woman doesn't care much for men and finds fulfillment mostly with women then living with six other women and having an occasional visit from her husband might be great. OTOH, if a woman enjoys the emotional, sexual, close, passionate, unified relationship then she most likely wouldn't find a polygamous relationship very fulfilling.

I disagree. I love the close emotional relationship my husband and I have, but I would love to also have a sister at home, another woman with whom to share other aspects of life. I grew up in a tight female-only unity, and I very much miss having other females in my home.

Del

[Guest Lori]

I disagree. I love the close emotional relationship my husband and I have, but I would love to also have a sister at home, another woman with whom to share other aspects of life. I grew up in a tight female-only unity, and I very much miss having other females in my home.

Del

I really doubt you have even thought about this to say something so ridiculous.

We have sister realtionships in all of our friendships with women. I don't need to have my husband marry one and have babies with one to enjoy that.

If you really love the bond you and your husband share, it will be gone when you bring another wife into the mix.

I highly doubt you will feel this way when you endure you husband having sex with one of these "sisters" in your home and bedroom.

Of course, everybody is different and maybe you really don't have a problem with this. I just wonder how deep you have really gone when I hear statments like yours.

[Guest Lori]

I would like to respond to the original question from Humanity about Mormonism being false based on polygamy. I don't feel it proves that The Book of Mormon is false, but it does prove that polygamy is a horrible practice, especially the way they practiced it. I don't know how it was different in Biblical times, but you can see how it cause problems with Sarah and Hagar. Look what happened to Hagar.

I think it has damaged our church in so many ways but the church still grows and people still feel the spirit when they read the Book of Mormon. It's the Book of Mormon that converts people and not the D & C. Why don't the missionsaries give that book when they convert people? I think we need to be honest about our doctrine before we baptize people into our church. But unfortunatley the missionaries probably don't even know about polygamy either.

[Del March]

I really doubt you have even thought about this to say something so ridiculous.

If I were you, I would avoid saying such things when you don't know the person you're talking to. I actually happen to have thought quite a lot on that subject, I even started a thread on that very subject a few months ago (called "polygamy as a woman" IIRC, in case you want to look for it).

We have sister realtionships in all of our friendships with women.

But none of those women live in my home, and none of them is married to my husband, so there are many things they can't understand and many things I'm not supposed to share with them.

If you really love the bond you and your husband share, it will be gone when you bring another wife into the mix. 

It will be replaced with something else. And I believe that this something else can be just as good as what I have now.

I highly doubt you will feel this way when you endure you husband having sex with one of these "sisters" in your home and bedroom.

I really REALLY don't understand what is all that hype about a husband having sex with another wife. I don't know if it is because I am European or what, but I really don't have a problem with my husband having sex with another woman whom he loves and who loves him. Quite the contrary. I want my husband to be as happy and fulfilled in all areas as possible, including emotional and physical intimacy. If another woman can give him some things he doesn't get with me, or even if she can give him the same things I give him and he likes receiving it from two different women, then I'm all for it!

If anything, I suggest you, Lori, examine why you can't stand the idea of your husband having sex with another wife, and why polygamy disgusts you so much. And I'm talking about YOU, not about all those women whose stories you've read. This is about you and your husband now, not about them then.

Del

[truth dancer]

I PERSONALLY believe that a persons choice in partnering is none of my business. (As long as children are not hurt). I truly do not want to be the one to decide who gets to sleep/marry/partner with whom.

Obviously there are alternative lifestyles that are enjoyed by many.

If people choose to do whatever of their own free will, without coercion, manipulation, demands, commands, powerful men telling them they must, believing it is God directed then fine.

I still don't think it is in accord with the further evolution of human consciousness but people are free to do as they wish.

I do have difficulty with a practice/command/doctrine that IN MY OPINION is counter to everything that (I believe) is holy, and (IMO) does not honor and respect women as equal and human.

~dancer~

[Guest Lori]

I PERSONALLY believe that a persons choice in partnering is none of my business. (As long as children are not hurt). I truly do not want to be the one to decide who gets to sleep/marry/partner with whom.

Obviously there are alternative lifestyles that are enjoyed by many.

If people choose to do whatever of their own free will, without coercion, manipulation, demands, commands, powerful men telling them they must, believing it is God directed then fine.

I still don't think it is in accord with the further evolution of human consciousness but people are free to do as they wish.

I do have difficulty with a practice/command/doctrine that IN MY OPINION is counter to everything that (I believe) is holy, and (IMO) does not honor and respect women as equal and human.

~dancer~

I completely agree with this. I just don't understand how a Christian with high moral values can suddenly take away all feelings for the sacredness of procreation and question how I have a problem with my husband having sex with another woman. It's not just about the sex. It's everything combined. It goes against everything moral and good I was raised in the church to be against.

I look at how we view marriage today in the church. So much in centered around preventing adultery. Look at all the things in the world that can cause a person to stray. What is the one thing (IMO) a spouse fears the most in marriage? Adultery. It ruins marriages. It's not just the sex although that is hard enough to overcome. It's the love that the husband gave to the woman and the relationship formed that causes the most pain. Look at all the things we teach in the church to keep people faithful to their covenants. Suddenly Joseph says all of that is done away because he had a revelation. Polygamy is worse than adultery-you are forced to live with the affair and love the woman.

Now if Del wants to be a polygamist I have no issue with her. But to pretend that it's a wonderful insitution "if lived correctly" is false. We have ancestors to prove it. I descend from a polygamist apostle and it makes me sick what my ancestors went through. I can't believe God would cosider what was done to them "HOLY" and the "Higher Law." I have not read anything to show that the apostles or prophet were any more righteous than the other faithful LDS men who wouldn't enter polygmay. It's a man made institution in my opinion.

[Del March]

I just don't understand how a Christian with high moral values can suddenly take away all feelings for the sacredness of procreation 

Are you accusing me of having done that?

It's not just about the sex.  It's everything combined.  It goes against everything moral and good I was raised in the church to be against.

It's not against everything moral and good *I* have been taught in the church, namely things like charity and selflessness.

Polygamy is worse than adultery-you are forced to live with the affair and love the woman.

(1) A wife doesn't assist her husband in choosing his adulterous mistress.

(2) A wife doesn't give her formal consent to her husband having a relationship with his mistress.

So comparing adultery and polygamy is ridiculous. Not to mention offensive for the non-first wives, since you are calling their marriages "affairs".

But to pretend that it's a wonderful insitution "if lived correctly" is false.

That's your opinion. Mine is, obviously, different.

We have ancestors to prove it.  I descend from a polygamist apostle and it makes me sick what my ancestors went through.  I can't believe God would cosider what was done to them "HOLY" and the "Higher Law."  I have not read anything to show that the apostles or prophet were any more righteous than the other faithful LDS men who wouldn't enter polygmay.  It's a man made institution in my opinion.

Then I suppose you also think monogamous marriage is a man-made institution, and definitely not a God-given principle? Because you see, I descend from broken and abusive marriages, and it makes me sick what my ancestors went through. I can't believe God considers what was done to some of my ancestors "holy".

If you can't see the difference between what God reveals and what men do with what God reveals, then you are indeed going to suffer in the LDS church.

Del

42 Wherefore, if a man have faith he must needs have hope; for without faith there cannot be any hope.

43 And again, behold I say unto you that he cannot have faith and hope, save he shall be meek, and lowly of heart.

44 If so, his faith and hope is vain, for none is acceptable before God, save the meek and lowly in heart; and if a man be meek and lowly in heart, and confesses by the power of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ, he must needs have charity; for if he have not charity he is nothing; wherefore he must needs have charity.

45 And charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

46 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, if ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth. Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all, for all things must fail

[truth dancer]

Hi Del...

(1) A wife doesn't assist her husband in choosing his adulterous mistress.

(2) A wife doesn't give her formal consent to her husband having a relationship with his mistress.

So comparing adultery and polygamy is ridiculous. Not to mention offensive for the non-first wives, since you are calling their marriages "affairs".

There are plenty of women who give consent to a man's affairs. I know a few of such situations personally.

IN MY OPINION, the dynamics of a marriage relationship (and the effects on children) involving additional partnerships are the same whether one calls the additional women wives or mistresses or other women or whatever.

~dancer~

[Guest Lori]

Del,

Just how is the man in the polygamous marriage perfecting himself, losing the "natural man?" How was he becoming more Christ like and humble?

This practice caused men to degrade women, neglect the fathering of children, place women even farther below them, desire wife after wife in some cases, take more wives than they could care for, obsess about building their kingdoms, and in some cases neglect the women to the point of starvation. If our Prophets and apostles couldn't do it right, then who can? If you read the teachings of the apostles and Prophets of polygamy, humble is that last word that comes to mind.

HOw can anybody excuse the bragging and degrading comments made by our leaders, the men called of GOd to speak in his name?

I can see how the woman might be more perfected in Charity and submission to everything God commands.

Please don't say the man had to put up with all those women. I think it's a terrible comparison to make when I hear it. THe men were hardly even around to hear complaining.