Rational justification for Polygamy?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?

Post by _harmony »

marg wrote:A fact, research has be done on this. This is a message board, I'm spending enough time in other areas doing research. If you don't trust me, try researching it yourself.


I think the problem is the definition of "religious". People join the church for reasons other than a spiritual witness. It's entirely possible that many of the single women who joined the church were convinced to do so by the missionaries with promises of a husband. Imagine their surprise when they found out they were only one of many, abject poverty, absent fathers, absent husbands.

And the projected birthrate for polygamous women vs monogamous women is the same. What polygamy did was provide a few men access to many women, thereby ensuring that their seed was propogated much more often than a monogamous man's was.

It was about power and control. Sex was simply the pleasant side effect.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

harmony wrote:It was about power and control. Sex was simply the pleasant side effect.

And you know all this . . . how, exactly?
_Morrissey
_Emeritus
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:42 am

Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?

Post by _Morrissey »

harmony wrote:5. the Mormon male's inherent disrespect for women, a product of almost 200 years of leaders who think of women as things to be collected like trading cards.

Daniel Peterson wrote:Absolute garbage on every level.


Not so true in 20th century onward as Mormonism begins to leave polygamy behind. Although women continue to this day to occupy lower status than men in Mormon Inc.

Largely true, however, in 19th century among the rutting Mormon male hierarchy.

I'm disappointed Dan to see you pop up and defend this abhorrent practice. I expect as much from Will and Nehor.

The FLDS today is Mormonism in the 19th century.

For you males who defend this garbage, I'd wish it on your daughters, except I would never want to consign any female to this barbarity that you defend.

Polygamy is a curious thing; watch it how it warps the otherwise fine moral sensibilities of those who are so desperate to defend it.
_Morrissey
_Emeritus
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:42 am

Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?

Post by _Morrissey »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
harmony wrote:It was about power and control. Sex was simply the pleasant side effect.

And you know all this . . . how, exactly?


Gee Dan, good point. Power and control had nothing to do with it :rolleyes:
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?

Post by _harmony »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
harmony wrote:1. the Mormon class system, with those who were born to polygamous women given elevated (and completely unearned) status that continues to this day.

I've not encountered this.


Live in a bubble, do ya?

harmony wrote:2. the Mormon sense of victimhood, leftover from the days of being driven from their homes for following a man who put words in God's mouth.

Spoken like an apostate.


Now, Dan. You know my response to this accusation. I am not required to follow a man who lost his prophetic mantle, especially one who lost it because he couldn't keep his pants up.

harmony wrote:3. the secretive Mormon culture, a product of the original temple ceremonies where already married men secretly married already married women, and the occasional teenage girl.

Dubious.


Not.

harmony wrote:4. the Mormon undergarment, a way of easily identifying those who were part of the inner circle who practiced early polygamy with Joseph.

Undergarments aren't a very effective mode of mutual identification, and I suspect that they were even less so under the clothing styles typical of the nineteenth century.


Not even close, Dan. Garments had long sleeves and long legs, from wrist to ankle. Those who were in the know could use the handshakes from the temple to feel the end of the sleeve or to see the end of the leg. This is not rocket science, Dan.

harmony wrote:5. the Mormon male's inherent disrespect for women, a product of almost 200 years of leaders who think of women as things to be collected like trading cards.

Absolute garbage on every level.


But not false. Were it not so, things would be much different.

harmony wrote:How many more do you want?

One true item would be nice.


All true. Not my fault you have gaps in your knowledge.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Yoda

Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?

Post by _Yoda »

Nehor wrote:I disrespectfully disagree. :wink:

_


Would you care to comment on the questions I asked Paul within the scriptural connotations I pointed out to Paul on page 1?

I would also welcome responses from Dan and/or Will:

Paul Osborne wrote:
Horse pucky. Christ fulfilled the Law... all of it. The ancient Isrealites had a lot of other nondoctrinal cultural practices that weren't restored, so that argument is really lame and easily punctured.

C'mon, Paul. You can do better than that.


Harmony,

Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses – the various rites, ordinances, and rituals that pertain to sacrifice. You know as well as I do that blessed plural marriage was before the law of Moses. There are no teachings in the scriptures that say Christ fulfilled (done away) the law of marriage as practiced by the ancients, notably, Abraham.

Did I do better that time?



Paul O


Wait a minute....rituals pertaining to sacrifice were part of the Abrahamic covenant. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, Issac. He stopped him before the sacrifice was complete, stating that the exercise was an object lesson symbolizing the sacrifice of Christ.

Why would Christ's crucifixion and resurrection only fulfill a portion of Abraham's law?

This is where I have always found a HUGE disconnect. Take a look at the following scriptures, Paul:

3 Nephi 15:9
9 Behold, I am the (a)law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life.


Take a look at the cross-reference for law:

2 Nephi 26:1
And after Christ shall have risen from the dead he shall show himself unto you, my children, and my beloved brethren; and the words which he shall speak unto you shall be the law which ye shall do.


Why the blatant disconnect? This, coupled with the graphic details of how the hearts of God's daughters were broken by polygamy in Jacob 2 leads me to believe that there has been some gross misrepresentation concerning polygamy from the beginning.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?

Post by _harmony »

liz3564 wrote:Why the blatant disconnect? This, coupled with the graphic details of how the hearts of God's daughters were broken by polygamy in Jacob 2 leads me to believe that there has been some gross misrepresentation concerning polygamy from the beginning.


And why would that be so?

Power and control.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Morrissey wrote:
Daniel Peterson wrote:And you know all this . . . how, exactly?

Gee Dan, good point. Power and control had nothing to do with it.

Gee, Morrissey. Excellent cultural, theological, and historical analysis. Your evidence overwhelms me. Your commitment to empiricism overcomes any reservations I might have had. Your impeccable logic [Harmony: "All X are Y." Evil Peterson: "Do you have any evidence that all X are Y?" Morrisey: "Oh right. So no X are Y?"] leaves me without any excuse for my failure to genuflect.

:lol:
_Yoda

Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?

Post by _Yoda »

Daniel Peterson wrote:Gee, Morrissey. Excellent cultural, theological, and historical analysis. Your evidence overwhelms me. Your commitment to empiricism overcomes any reservations I might have had. Your impeccable logic [Harmony: "All X are Y." Evil Peterson: "Do you have any evidence that all X are Y?" Morrisey: "Oh right. So no X are Y?"] leaves me without any excuse for my failure to genuflect.

:lol:


In all seriousness Dan, I would love for you to take a look at my post and address some of my concerns.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

harmony wrote:Live in a bubble, do ya?

Manifestly, I don't.

Yet I haven't experienced what you claim to be effectively universal.

harmony wrote:Now, Dan. You know my response to this accusation.

Yup. And you know my response to your response.

harmony wrote:I am not required to follow a man who lost his prophetic mantle, especially one who lost it because he couldn't keep his pants up.

You opt out of Mormonism somewhere in the early 1830s. You're something like a Bickertonite, or perhaps a kind of fellow-traveler of the Community of Christ.

harmony wrote:
Dubious.

Not.

Dubious at best.

harmony wrote:Not even close, Dan. Garments had long sleeves and long legs, from wrist to ankle. Those who were in the know could use the handshakes from the temple to feel the end of the sleeve or to see the end of the leg. This is not rocket science, Dan.

You're right. It's fantasy, with a kind of quirky conspiratorial flavor.

harmony wrote:
Absolute garbage on every level.

But not false. Were it not so, things would be much different.

False on every level.

harmony wrote:Not my fault you have gaps in your knowledge.

LOL. Right.

Liz, I'm trying to figure out which question of yours it is that I'm supposed to answer.

liz3564 wrote: Why would Christ's crucifixion and resurrection only fulfill a portion of Abraham's law?

I know nothing about Christ's fulfilling any law of Abraham. When Christ is said to have "fulfilled the law," the reference is always to the law of Moses, which, of course, postdates Abraham.

liz3564 wrote:This, coupled with the graphic details of how the hearts of God's daughters were broken by polygamy in Jacob 2 leads me to believe that there has been some gross misrepresentation concerning polygamy from the beginning.

There is no question that polygamy can cause heartbreak. Has it always? It seems not. Ordinary monogamous marriage can cause heartbreak, too, and, today, many such marriages fail.

Morrissey wrote:Not so true in 20th century onward as Mormonism begins to leave polygamy behind. . . . Largely true, however, in 19th century among the rutting Mormon male hierarchy.

I don't believe that Mormon men were any more disdainful of women in the nineteenth century than other nineteenth-century men were. Do you have any actual evidence to demonstrate otherwise?

In fact, the very early grant of the franchise to women in Utah might suggest the opposite.

Incidentally, the rutting Mormon male hierarchy insult is duly noted.

Morrissey wrote:Although women continue to this day to occupy lower status than men in Mormon Inc.

Yes and no. They certainly have a different status.

Incidentally, the Mormon Inc. sneer is duly noted.

Morrissey wrote:I'm disappointed Dan to see you pop up and defend this abhorrent practice. I expect as much from Will and Nehor.

Like them, I'm a believer. You shouldn't be surprised.

Morrissey wrote:The FLDS today is Mormonism in the 19th century.

Not true. The differences are substantial and deep.

Morrissey wrote:For you males who defend this garbage, I'd wish it on your daughters, except I would never want to consign any female to this barbarity that you defend.

Your contempt and ill will are duly noted.

Morrissey wrote:Polygamy is a curious thing; watch it how it warps the otherwise fine moral sensibilities of those who are so desperate to defend it.

"Desperate"? I'm not desperate. Nor have I really done much "defending." I've simply questioned certain dogmatic assertions.

I believe that God leads the Church. That's all.
Post Reply