Rational justification for Polygamy?

[_Morrissey]

If you want to understand much about 19th century Mormon polygamy, look no further than the FLDS today.

That is, of course, an eminently debatable assertion. I see vast differences between the two.

I never said that there were no differences. It's the similarities I'm interested in. Similarities such as how polygamy objectifies women, accumulating wives as a prerogative and demonstration of power among elites, trapping young girls in loveless marriages to older men, women as means to men's fulfillment, women as walking wombs, marrying off girls at young ages in spite of their desires/needs, etc.

I find your apologies for polygamy distasteful. . . . Like Dan, you blind devotion to Mormonism has warped your moral sensibilities. . . . Your dismissal of this self-evident fact is morally repugnant to me.

Disagreement with Morrissey is unmistakable proof of defective ethics and even of immorality. Dissent from his opinions at your peril.

No, apologizing for religious systems that dehumanize and demean women is proof of defective operations of one's moral sense (not that one has a defective moral sense, only that it is malfunctioning in this case) and evidence that loyalty to the tribe yet again Trump's all other considerations.

I have limited patience with people who treat human rights and dignity as a negotiable abstraction when it does not involve them personally.

Women trapped in polygamy are not abstractions that you can dismiss away in typical apologetic manner. They are real people with real lives, hopes, aspirations, etc., and they deserve the same human dignity and respect as you do.

This is rather bizarre, coming from somebody who apparently imagines that the reality of history can be determined by reasoning from "self-evident certainties," absent empirical data.

Wrong, I've based on conclusion on extensive reading and observations of early Mormon polygamy and its modern manifestations. The evidence of how polygamy as practiced by early Mormons and FLDS today (its modern manifestation) objectifies and dehumanizes women is so obvious that it fits the description 'self-evident.'

That you continue to apologize for this practice is morally repugnant to me. I am not saying you personally lack morals or that you personally are morally repugnant; I am saying that in this specific case, your defense of a system that demeans and dehumanizes women is morally repugnant to me.

Similarly I find Wade's and Nehor's blatant bigotry toward homosexuals morally repugnant.

If you want to defend polygamy Dan you cannot realistically expect people to have no moral objections to it, can you?? I mean, does your devotion to Mormonism leave you so detached from the real world that you cannot understand this?

Oh, and, Yes, I take it as a self-evident truth that woman's needs, hopes, desires, etc. are every bit as important as man's. I also take it as a self-evident truth that people inherently posses value in and of themselves; that they are more than a means to someone else's ends.

Polygamy as practiced by early Mormons violates both of these self-evident truths.

[_asbestosman]

There is a reason Jesus Christ taught that a man and woman should cleave unto each other and no other; in my opinion it is because it is in this exclusive relationship where the depths of the human soul can be realized and where the beauty of emotional intimacy can transform the heart and soul.

I can think of no logical reason why monogamy is the only place where such depths can be realized, but somehow that is how I experience romantic love--exclusiveness is best.

However, the logical part of me wonders why the love of God isn't where the depths of the soul are realized surpassing even romantic love. The love of God does not require an exclusive relationship. I therefore see no logical reason that polygyny or polyandry cannot do the same even though emotionally I don't think I could.

[The Stig]

Now, in making the previous statement, it is my intention to make reference to some of the comments made by Heber C. Kimball; comments which have become more famous in the hands of modern critics of Mormonism than they ever were in his day. I am familiar with his comments concerning wives and cows. I believe they are misinterpreted by people who are motivated by a desire to place attitudes in the man that he did not naturally possess. Indeed, the evidence is clear that the wives of leading Mormons, including Heber C. Kimball, were fully empowered in their respective spheres.

Will, would you mind expanding on this a bit further?

As a believer, I have always been bothered by the statement Heber C. Kimball made regarding "marrying a woman is like buying a cow".

Even if he was joking, it was a statement made in completely poor taste, and exemplifies the exact type of attitude toward women that is the epitome of un-Christlike behavior.

When you say that President Kimball's comments were misinterpreted, would you mind explaining how? Are you saying that he actually didn't make the comment?

I'm also curious about your comment regarding his wives being fully empowered "within their respective spheres." What exactly do you mean by that?

Thanks!

Liz,

I believe Heber's comments were much more understandable in the context of the world in which he lived. It is apparent from the whole of the historical record that Heber was quite sensitive to the needs of his many wives, at least insofar as he appreciated those needs in the context of his times. He was clearly willing to permit any dissatisfied wife to go her way, and he likewise provided abundantly for those who chose to stay married to him. I think it is also notable that Heber's first wife was universally adored by her sister wives. To me, this is also indicative of the atmosphere of love, trust, and security in which his wives lived.

You would do well to read more of the first-hand accounts of plural wives in 19th century Utah. I perceive a considerable disconnect between our current attitudes and the attitudes of those who took part in "the principle."

I do not mean to play apologist for every aspect of plural marriage. (After all, Belinda Pratt has already fulfilled that calling.) I am quite conscious of its inherent challenges, and I also think that it is essential to understand that our modern concepts of love, romance, and the ideal marital relationship are not entirely consistent with the cultural attitudes of pioneer-era Mormonism, nor with America in general at the time. But to reflexively conclude that women were oppressed in some way because their lives were different from ours is a naïve and rather uninformed interpretation of the times and the lives of those who willingly adapted themselves to the unique parameters of the era of plural marriage.

Incidentally, no one was "forced" into plural marriage--neither men nor women. I descend from early pioneer stock, and yet I have yet to identify a single plural marriage among my pioneer ancestors, this despite the fact that many of the men were leaders in their respective wards and stakes. They simply chose to not participate in plural marriage, just as 85% or so of Mormon men during the era.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If you want to defend polygamy Dan you cannot realistically expect people to have no moral objections to it, can you?? I mean, does your devotion to Mormonism leave you so detached from the real world that you cannot understand this?

No.

And I've said nothing to suggest otherwise.

Oh, and, Yes, I take it as a self-evident truth that woman's needs, hopes, desires, etc. are every bit as important as man's. I also take it as a self-evident truth that people inherently posses value in and of themselves; that they are more than a means to someone else's ends.

So do I.

Polygamy as practiced by early Mormons violates both of these self-evident truths.

I disagree.

[_gramps]

DCP wrote:

Cet animal est fort méchant. Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

Gramps, go out for a walk. There's probably still some light there in Bavaria. It's really pretty. Take a look outside.

Cute, DCP. But....what actually are you trying to imply?

I just returned from a two-hour ride on my bicycle along the river. Stopped for a brief dip (naked) in the lake. This was all after marking around 15 papers (I'm pacing myself), as well as, completing some research in the library, walking the dog and cooking two delicious meals. In fact, there are some onions, together with some paprika and mushrooms simmering on the stove. I've boiled some potatoes, pulled out the quark from the fridge, and am now barbecuing a steak marinated in paprika sauce out in the garden. Bavaria is indeed beautiful.

And gosh, I wonder what you've done today besides your typical. Are you getting any exercise? I'm sure you didn't get any naked swimming in today. But how about a long bike ride, or did you drive your car to work?

By the number of posts you have accumulated, especially in comparison to mine, it seems perhaps it is you that ought to get out more and take your own advice. Hang out with your wife or friends in the mountains. I won't make any jokes about the donuts, but people here have seen my picture and a lot of us have seen yours. It is certain that you would benefit much more than me by getting out and away from that computer screen.

DCP, go out for a walk. Utah County is really pretty. Take a look outside. Get some exercise. That is my one smiley for the evening, I promise.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Do you post anything besides personal attacks, gramps? I hadn't, as I say, paid much attention to you until very recently, and essentially all I've seen from you since then have been insults directed at me. Were you doing that even before? Have I been ignoring your little potshots? If so, I apologize. Both for the ones I've missed in the past and for the ones that I intend to overlook in the future.

[_William Schryver]

LessUSee:

I never said that there were no differences. It's the similarities I'm interested in. Similarities such as how polygamy objectifies women, accumulating wives as a prerogative and demonstration of power among elites, trapping young girls in loveless marriages to older men, women as means to men's fulfillment, women as walking wombs, marrying off girls at young ages in spite of their desires/needs, etc.

This paragraph is simply indicative of your obvious ignorance concerning 19th century plural marriage in Utah. The differences between the environment of pre-Manifesto plural marriage with its post-Manifesto examples are profound and numerous. To me, the most telling difference is the nature of the "open society" of 19th century Mormon polygamy vs. the insular and "closed society" of 20th and 21st century polygamy among apostate Mormon groups. I doubt you can cite any examples of Warren Jeffs' wives traveling to Europe or the metropolitan areas of the eastern United States in order to study art or become physicians, as did numerous plural wives of 19th century Mormons.

But, in the interest of resolving this dispute, feel free to post examples of "accumulating wives as a prerogative and demonstration of power among elites, trapping young girls in loveless marriages to older men, women as means to men's fulfillment, women as walking wombs, marrying off girls at young ages in spite of their desires/needs, etc." I am not aware of any such examples, but perhaps you have been more rigorous in your studies than I.

[_asbestosman]

By the way, I seem to detect at least two separate objections to polygyny here. One deals with the depths of intimacy in monogamy vs polygamy. The other deals with coercing women into said relationships more or less against their better judgment and by extension not treating women with respect and dignity.

I find the latter repugnant and do not defend it. The only thing I might dispute is whether that is how it was practiced by the early saints. However, as I am no history buff, I will not attempt to make an argument there in either direction instead deferring to those apologists who have a better grasp of such things and dispute that the latter is simply not how polygyny was practiced among the early saints.

[_William Schryver]

By the way, I seem to detect at least two separate objections to polygyny here. One deals with the depths of intimacy in monogamy vs polygamy. The other deals with coercing women into said relationships more or less against their better judgment and by extension not treating women with respect and dignity.

I find the latter repugnant and do not defend it. The only thing I might dispute is whether that is how it was practiced by the early saints. However, as I am no history buff, I will not attempt to make an argument there in either direction instead deferring to those apologists who have a better grasp of such things and dispute that the latter is simply not how polygyny was practiced among the early saints.

I have been a student of that era. I can say, without reservation, that my studies of the primary sources indicates that the kinds of abuse intimated by 21st century critics of Mormonism and 19th century Mormon polygyny is rarely to be found in the evidence. In fact, quite the opposite.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Abman, :-)

However, the logical part of me wonders why the love of God isn't where the depths of the soul are realized surpassing even romantic love. The love of God does not require an exclusive relationship. I therefore see no logical reason that polygyny or polyandry cannot do the same even though emotionally I don't think I could.

As someone who doesn't believe in a personal/human-male-being as God, I don't quite understand your comment. In addition, I am not talking about "romantic" love, I'm talking about ethereal, transcendent, soul-mate type of love... the kind of love that comes after a life-time of exclusive sharing and loving.

And, no it is not possible when a man has multiple women. The soul-mate type of relationship requires exclusivity, sexually and otherwise.

A couple of thoughts though... first there is no real intimacy where there is no equality. Period. In other words, inequality disallows true intimacy.

Secondly, in my opinion, the very essence of existence is the fundamental "idea" or phenomenon or philosophy of yin/yang. I find the idea of imbalance (yang/yin, yin, yin, yin, yin) going against the very nature of the universe, (for numerous reasons of which I don't have time to go into).

Finally, I remember as a believer contemplating the idea that if God loves perfectly and fully and we all become Gods and Goddesses (as much as this idea revolts me), would we not love everyone perfectly and completely? Which would mean the depth of love would be the same for every single person. Hmmm... then why have marriages? Why have families? Why limit sex with whomever one is sealed to on the earth? Why not just seal everyone to everyone? (smile) Then again, some people do believe sealing is not really to a person but some sort of ordinance to be sealed to God's family or something along these lines. Who knows? LOL!



~td~