Rational justification for Polygamy?

[_gramps]

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.

Pretty blind sometimes, aren't you?

Follow the threads back and see who started the attack. I'll help you out.

Wow! Fascinating! I wonder what Freud would say...

Or something close to that. It's the condescension that drips from your posts. Did you forget that you started it?

Anyway, I am just here for kicks and I enjoy giving it to you. I've watched you dish it out to Harmony over the years, as well as, many others. You have a problem with getting back what you dish out?

DCP, you are not innocent here, by any stretch of the imagination. Do you think you are?

[_Some Schmo]

DCP, you are not innocent here, by any stretch of the imagination. Do you think you are?

Of course he is, gramps. He only defends himself. He never starts anything. It's always the cornered animal syndrome with danny.

Of course, now he's at the point where he's been on the defense so long, he does preemptive defensive strikes, which are not to be confused with offensive strikes, even though they appear to be exactly the same thing.

[_Morrissey]

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.

That's just the problem Will, you define abuse too narrowly. A young girl may in fact be treated respectfully by the middle-aged man to whom she was given. But the very fact that she was 'given' to him, that she had no choice in the matter, that she is denied the intimacy that is a a presumed benefit of marriage, that her needs/wants were irrelevant in the exchange, is itself abuse.

Polygamy is a system very much designed with the needs of men in mind, not the needs of women. Get a sense of how even faithful Mormon women cringe at the idea of polygamy, and you'll begin to understand.

Your argument lacks empathy, which is generally true of men who apologize for polygamy. It's a great system, as long as it's someone else (preferably someone in the abstract and preferably women) who surrender their needs and wants for the good of the system. Men get another woman to f***.

[_gramps]

DCP, you are not innocent here, by any stretch of the imagination. Do you think you are?

Of course he is, gramps. He only defends himself. He never starts anything. It's always the cornered animal syndrome with danny.

Of course, now he's at the point where he's been on the defense so long, he does preemptive defensive strikes, which are not to be confused with offensive strikes, even though they appear to be exactly the same thing.

He is a lot like my dad. So righteous, that it is impossible to be guilty of anything. No passive-aggression, nope. No baiting, nope. It is always the sinner's problem. Always.

Blech. He is sooo chapel Mormon. I am sure he and Bruce R. would get along. They've got this schtick down so well, they may actually believe it.

edited to add: Yes, I know Bruce R. is dead and I should have written that better. Just trying to preempt DCPs word game to make me feel stupid. Which I think I can bet on.

[_Some Schmo]

He is a lot like my dad. So righteous, that it is impossible to be guilty of anything. No passive-aggression, nope. No baiting, nope. It is always the sinner's problem. Always.

Blech. He is sooo chapel Mormon.

He's going to love that you called him a chapel Mormon.

If I were like him, I'd state it as though it were some insightful prediction, and pat myself on the back for it, even though anyone who's only marginally paying attention could have predicted the exact same thing.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Some more lucid readers may be puzzled by the recent spate of attack-posts on this thread.

I'm not sure what the explanation is, but I think they may be coming in response to Sethbag's unfortunate civility and substance on the "SquareTwo" thread. I told Sethbag there that, if he wanted to, he could learn incivility and lack of substance from other vocal posters here at MDB. In a touching show of public-spiritedness and concern for Sethbag, some of the star performers in the genre have stepped forward almost immediately in order to provide him with practical demonstrations of their art.

[_Morrissey]

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.

19th century Mormons had attributes of openness as you describe. It was also in many other ways a closed, tribal society. That's certainly how much of the general public back then viewed the Mormons. The way people today view the FLDS is also similar in many ways to how Mormons were viewed in the 19th century.

I repeat, I've never said early Mormon polygamy and FLDS were identical; but many of the elements found in FLDS today were found in 19th century Mormondom as well.

What can I say Will, if you cannot see the things I've cited in 19th century polygamy, it implies either that you lack a scintilla of perception or that your loyalty to the tribe has blinded you. Either way, not very flattering.

[_Some Schmo]

I told Sethbag there that, if he wanted to, he could learn incivility and lack of substance from other vocal posters here at MDB. In a touching show of public-spiritedness and concern for Sethbag, some of the star performers in the genre have stepped forward almost immediately in order to provide him with practical demonstrations of their art.

...starring Dan P as the lead uncivil and non-substance writing poster!

by the way, it's not much of a prediction if you're going to fulfill it yourself. Just a note for the future, smart guy.

[The Stig]

LessUSee:

A young girl may in fact be treated respectfully by the middle-aged man to whom she was given. But the very fact that she was 'given' to him, that she had no choice in the matter, that she is denied the intimacy that is a a presumed benefit of marriage, that her needs/wants were irrelevant in the exchange, is itself abuse. ...

And herein lies the problem. Your statement above has no relationship to the reality of plural marriage as it was conducted in 19th century Mormonism. That's why I challenged you to demonstrate, with examples, the kind of "abuse" you believe took place during that era.

No young women were "given" to an older man in the sense you suggest. Unlike the deviant practices of the modern FLDS, the consent of each woman was paramount. No young women were "forced" into marriages. If you believe otherwise, I again challenge you to produce the empirical evidence of same. However, I warn you in advance, you will seek such evidence in vain.

The bottom line, sir, is that you simply do not know what you are talking about.
.
.
.
Edit: I want to clarify that, although one might be able to identify isolated examples of abuse, mistreatment, etc., within 19th Mormon polygyny, such instances--to the extent they can be identified--were the exception rather than the rule.
.
.
.
.
=====================>

[_asbestosman]

As someone who doesn't believe in a personal/human-male-being as God, I don't quite understand your comment.

I believe that God's love is supreme even surpassing the love soul-mates have for each other. It's my belief and I don't have anything to back it up other than perhaps scripture.

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

I can't argue with that. It appears to me to simply be your faith or belief just as the previous one about God's love is one of mine. There's nothing wrong with that, but without supporting principles upon which this is based, there's really nothing for me to say other than it's probably best to look at life that way even though I don't see why it's a logical necessity. At best it's simply a statement of how things are instead of how they must logically be. For example, women cary the developing baby, but this is not a logical necessity (see seahorses).

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?

I would think so.

Which would mean the depth of love would be the same for every single person. Hmmm... then why have marriages? Why have families?

I don't know, but responsibility / stewardship comes to mind. It's easier to have a limited but manageable sphere of responsibility than to be responsible for the entire human race. Delegate or die as they say at church. In any case family is the structure God has in the heavens.

Why limit sex with whomever one is sealed to on the earth?

I don't know, but promises are important as is manageability. We have a hard enough time managing custody on earth so that sdults can spend time with their kids from various relationships. One particularly difficult issue is coordinating the schedules of the various adults.