A Scenario for our Male Apologists to Consider...

[_KevinSim]

It doesn't change the fact that women are objects for the purposes of men in polygamous societies.

This may be true for some polygamous societies, but is it true for all polygamous societies? Has anyone done a study of all polygamous societies, that resulted in this conclusion?

[_KevinSim]

One of the great things about the LDS Church is the phenomenon of extremely harmonious, extremely efficient, men-women teams.

Nonsense. Bullshaloney. Horse pucky.

Good grief.

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about the scores of LDS married couples I have known who survived the empty nest and went on, each couple together, to accomplish great things. My second mission president and his wife come to mind. My current bishop and his wife. My own parents, who served a mission helping people find jobs at their local LDS Social Services office.

Harmony, why do you think men-women teams are nonsense and bullshaloney?

[_KevinSim]

Sooo, what are all these amazing things that marriage is about other than sex that one cannot do with a good friend?

This list is not meant to be exhaustive; it's just what I could think of on short notice; I reserve the right to come back and add more in the future.

1. Sleeping together. Sex is fine, but I kind of like just sleeping with my wife, waking up next to her in the morning.

2. Raising kids.

3. Serving retirement missions.

4. Any of a number of things that could only be accomplished by two people who have committed to staying with each other for the rest of eternity. (Friends are good, but it's always understood that a friend could opt to cross the country if s/he needed to, regardless of what her/his friend thinks this friend should do.)

[_beastie]

Kevin,

I don't understand why you're wasting all your mental energy on defending plural wifery. It's already been clearly demonstrated on this thread that plural husbandry is in your future.

[_KevinSim]

I think you think you agree, but I know that if we dig deep enough, you don't.

Creator and created are two very different beings. You can't go from created to Creator, not anymore than a cat can become a dog.

And therefore what? "Creator and created are two very different beings," and therefore I don't agree with you? How do you come to that conclusion?

[_Yoda]

Sooo, what are all these amazing things that marriage is about other than sex that one cannot do with a good friend?

This list is not meant to be exhaustive; it's just what I could think of on short notice; I reserve the right to come back and add more in the future.

1. Sleeping together. Sex is fine, but I kind of like just sleeping with my wife, waking up next to her in the morning.

2. Raising kids.

3. Serving retirement missions.

4. Any of a number of things that could only be accomplished by two people who have committed to staying with each other for the rest of eternity. (Friends are good, but it's always understood that a friend could opt to cross the country if s/he needed to, regardless of what her/his friend thinks this friend should do.)

Notice what I bolded in your post, Kevin. I absolutely agree with everything you stated. However, I don't see how any of those things can be optimally practiced in a polygamous relationship. Sure, the man always gets to wake up next to someone, but what about the women? For all intents and purposes, basically, the women in even the BEST polygamous situations, are functioning as a single parent quite a bit of the time. Neither wife has the benefit of a husband/lover/life partner who is completely committed to her, even though she is completely committed to him. I'm sorry, but that sounds a lot more like hell than heaven to me.

[_just me]

This list is not meant to be exhaustive; it's just what I could think of on short notice; I reserve the right to come back and add more in the future.

1. Sleeping together. Sex is fine, but I kind of like just sleeping with my wife, waking up next to her in the morning.

2. Raising kids.

3. Serving retirement missions.

4. Any of a number of things that could only be accomplished by two people who have committed to staying with each other for the rest of eternity. (Friends are good, but it's always understood that a friend could opt to cross the country if s/he needed to, regardless of what her/his friend thinks this friend should do.)

Notice what I bolded in your post, Kevin. I absolutely agree with everything you stated. However, I don't see how any of those things can be optimally practiced in a polygamous relationship. Sure, the man always gets to wake up next to someone, but what about the women? For all intents and purposes, basically, the women in even the BEST polygamous situations, are functioning as a single parent quite a bit of the time. Neither wife has the benefit of a husband/lover/life partner who is completely committed to her, even though she is completely committed to him. I'm sorry, but that sounds a lot more like hell than heaven to me.

All the things listed could be done with two women or two men or a man and woman who are not married. Well, except the LDS mission. No guarantee they would get sent to the same place as companions.

I agree with liz, though. As soon as you throw another person in the marriage suddenly SOMEONE is sleeping alone (unless they bed share, which is fine by me) or getting left behind...unless the church has a poly mission option I am unaware of. LMAO

Also, not everyone wants to raise kids or serve a mission.

[_KevinSim]

And....still lost me.

I'm not trying to evade. Just, a comparison of death to monogamy is not something I'm getting.

Okay, let me see if I can explain it better. We're talking about two commandments, both mentioned in Exodus 20. (1) Thou shalt not kill. (2) Thou shalt not commit adultery. You seem to think that polygamy is equivalent to committing adultery. I don't agree with that, but that's no matter.

God commanded us not to kill, and yet sometimes God kills, and sometimes God commands people in the Old Testament to kill. So the commandment not to kill is not hard and fast. Even though God commanded us not to kill, sometimes He wants us to kill.

How then do you know that the commandment to not commit adultery is hard and fast? If there can be some wiggle room on the commandment not to kill, why can't there be some wiggle room (at God's discretion) on the commandment to not commit adultery?

The bottom line is that if God can require some people to kill, even though He said, "Thou shalt not kill," then surely God can command Joseph Smith to marry women other than Emma. Why is it that God should have the freedom to command some people to kill, and yet not have the freedom to tell Smith and others to take additional wives?

[_KevinSim]

KevinSim: prepare for disappointment. You may have to share your wife with several thousand other Asian male babies in the CK. Damn that auto-exaltation doctrine for the kiddos...

Spektical, are you saying that over the mentioned time period (400 BCE to 1950 CE) there were 20 billion male babies born and only 18 billion female babies born? Or that the birth rate of males is closer to matching the birth rate of females, and that over the course of the human race, after all the male babies died, if you add up all the gaps between the genders it comes to 2 to 4 billion?

[_just me]

I can't wait to get my harem. It's gonna be so effing awesome!