"I really struggle with polygamy"

[Analytics]

Silly boy! Don't you know that men are only good for one thing?

;)

Washing cars?

Taking out the trash?

Mowing the lawn?

Forgetting to put the lid down?

Giving back rubs?

[_The Nehor]

Go to Crackle.com and watch Mr. Deity Season 2, Episode 9. This explains the whole thing.

[_bcspace]

I honestly don't see why anyone would struggle with plural marriage. I don't.

I have to say, I think you are the first person I have ever come across who doesn't at least understand to some degree why polygamy is problematic. Even those LDS men who are looking forward to the day usually can see why it may be difficult for many people.

I've heard the arguments. However, the reason it's never a problem is because it's voluntary. Of course this now leads to a certain discussion in the Celestial thread.....

*sigh* BC, BC....Darling..I do like you. You are my favorite misogynist, but a misogynist, nonetheless. ;)

Methinks you do not know the definition of the word.

TD brings up some good points in how to basically "turn the tables", if you will allow yourself to do so:

TD wrote:
How would you feel if you were told that your wife is going to have ten new husbands, say the High Councilmen in your Stake. She would now spend about two days a month with you and your children (if you have some). YOU OTOH will not get to have a woman in your life with the exception of a day or two a month. During the time your wife spends with you she will be busy with your children and taking care of a few practical matters. She may or may not want to be emotionally or physically or sexually intimate with you so basically, your relationship is no longer one of connection, partnership, care, concern, sex, love, friendship. She more or less visits you now and then... a dozen or two times a year. As time goes on, the newer husbands are more enticing and fun and her visits become less and less.

Absolutely meaningless as I already know what the doctrine is. I wouldn't be a member if I did not believe all the doctrine. I would also feel free to seek elsewhere if my spouse did not meet her obligations while I was meeting mine.

[_asbestosman]

No, wait, the one thing guys are good for is bringing home money to pay bills and finance the woman's shoe fetish.

[_Brackite]

There are two big problems that I have with Mormon Polygamy.

One big problem that I have with Mormon Polygamy, is that when some the Mormons practiced it back in the 19th Century, there was no limit to the number amount of wives that a Mormon Leader could have. For example, Both Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball had more than 26 wives each. There is virtually no possible way for a man, to be able to take care of having at least 25 wives. Why wasn't there a limit to the amount of a number of wives that a man could have? Like having a man limit to having three wives, and definitely no more wives than that. A man having many wives is truly an abomination, according to the Book of Mormon (Please See: Jacob 2, Mosiah 11, and Ether 10.). And Plus, With a few of the Mormon leaders having a lot of wives, that made it harder, for a few of the LDS males to find even one wife, since there was No surplus of women over men in the Utah territory, during the 19th. (Please See: Utah Census Figures..)

Another Problem that I have with Mormon Polygamy is that, Mormon Polygamy is still doctrine within the LDS Church (Please See: Doc. and Cov. 132.), and that Mormon Polygamy will be practiced big time in the Celestial Kingdom. The Following is from the second LDS President, Brigham Young:

Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of Heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire. That empire was founded on the banks of the Tiber by wandering brigands. When these robbers founded the city of Rome, it was evident to them that their success in attaining a balance of power with their neighbours, depended upon introducing females into their body politic, so they stole them from the Sabines, who were near neighbours. The scarcity of women gave existence to laws restricting one wife to one man. Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.

...

Why do we believe in and practise polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. "And is that religion popular in heaven?" It is the only popular religion there, for this is the religion of Abraham, and, unless we do the works of Abraham, we are not Abraham's seed and heirs according to promise.

( Journal of Discourses, Volume #9. , Bold Emphasis Mine. )

The Second LDS President Brigham Young, Also stated:

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessing offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

( Journal of Discourses, Volume #11. )

The Following is From About.com:

How many boys are born for every 100 girls?

There are 105 boy babies born for ever 100 girl babies worldwide but scientists haven't determined why this sex ratio is so.

( http://geography.about.com/library/faq/ ... eratio.htm )

However, Polyandry will Not be able to be Practiced in the Celestial Kingdom, according to LDS Doctrine. The Following is from Doctrine and Covenants Section 132, verses 61-64:

Doctrine and Covenants Section 132:61-64:

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

[_moksha]

Because to do so condemns every single person who followed in his footsteps. All our venerated ancestors, all our leaders, all our sacred ordinances... everything is wrong, if we accept that Joseph was wrong about plural marriage. Not to mention, it's canonized.

So if everybody is jumping off a cliff, should we hold the the jumping or the cliff sacred?

[_The Nehor]

Because to do so condemns every single person who followed in his footsteps. All our venerated ancestors, all our leaders, all our sacred ordinances... everything is wrong, if we accept that Joseph was wrong about plural marriage. Not to mention, it's canonized.

So if everybody is jumping off a cliff, should we hold the the jumping or the cliff sacred?

I would seek revelation on that matter.

[_Chap]

TD brings up some good points in how to basically "turn the tables", if you will allow yourself to do so:

TD wrote:
How would you feel if you were told that your wife is going to have ten new husbands, say the High Councilmen in your Stake. She would now spend about two days a month with you and your children (if you have some). YOU OTOH will not get to have a woman in your life with the exception of a day or two a month. During the time your wife spends with you she will be busy with your children and taking care of a few practical matters. She may or may not want to be emotionally or physically or sexually intimate with you so basically, your relationship is no longer one of connection, partnership, care, concern, sex, love, friendship. She more or less visits you now and then... a dozen or two times a year. As time goes on, the newer husbands are more enticing and fun and her visits become less and less.

Absolutely meaningless as I already know what the doctrine is. I wouldn't be a member if I did not believe all the doctrine. I would also feel free to seek elsewhere if my spouse did not meet her obligations while I was meeting mine.

Somehow the logic of that response has flown right over my confused little head.

But bcspace's last sentence is intriguing in this context. Does it mean that if a plural wife, presumed to be 'meeting all her obligations' in that role finds the attentions of her husband inadequate, she would be in bcspace's view entitled to 'seek elsewhere'?

Naah. Somehow (under correction, as always) I suspect not.

[_Yoda]

*sigh* BC, BC....Darling..I do like you. You are my favorite misogynist, but a misogynist, nonetheless. ;)

Methinks you do not know the definition of the word.

TD brings up some good points in how to basically "turn the tables", if you will allow yourself to do so:

How would you feel if you were told that your wife is going to have ten new husbands, say the High Councilmen in your Stake. She would now spend about two days a month with you and your children (if you have some). YOU OTOH will not get to have a woman in your life with the exception of a day or two a month. During the time your wife spends with you she will be busy with your children and taking care of a few practical matters. She may or may not want to be emotionally or physically or sexually intimate with you so basically, your relationship is no longer one of connection, partnership, care, concern, sex, love, friendship. She more or less visits you now and then... a dozen or two times a year. As time goes on, the newer husbands are more enticing and fun and her visits become less and less.

Absolutely meaningless as I already know what the doctrine is. I wouldn't be a member if I did not believe all the doctrine. I would also feel free to seek elsewhere if my spouse did not meet her obligations while I was meeting mine.

Actually, BC, I do know the meaning of the word. And, true, I don't REALLY think that you hate women. But, I do think that your unwillingness to at least try to understand the problems with plural marriage from the woman's perspective is misogynistic. ;)

Looking at the issue from a woman's perspective is not disavowing the doctrine. It's an attempt to have you think outside the box for a moment.

The LDS men who have a testimony of the plural marriage principle whom I have spoken to have acknowledged that this would be difficult, and that, especially if the tables were turned, they didn't know if they could deal with it. These same men also acknowledged that they really couldn't see themselves with anyone but the one wife they were married to, and hoped that the Lord wouldn't ask them to practice the principle, but accepted it.

But for you to simply state that there is no reason that anyone should have a problem with it is pious, and yes, misogynistic in tendency.

[_Jersey Girl]

Silly boy! Don't you know that men are only good for one thing?

;)

Washing cars?

Taking out the trash?

Mowing the lawn?

Forgetting to put the lid down?

Giving back rubs?

Pulling me out of a ditch and removing the dead bodies. TMI?