Plural Marriage or Polygamy?

[_truth dancer]

I've noticed many believers refer to the practice of polygamy as "plural marriage," almost as if this is a more respectable term.

While the word "polygamy" conjures up images of male power, submissive women, and King Solomon type of guys, plural marriage brings images of the FLDS which, in my opinion, are much more creepy.

Personally, the harem lifestyle (as we can see) has nothing to do with the common understanding of what is a marriage so I think it is quite a misnomer to even use the word marriage in a description of this practice.

I'm wondering if after all the media coverage of "plural marriage" if the SLC LDS church is going to come up with another word?

~dancer~

[Guest]

This reminds me of the instance of many beginning any discussion with the statement "technically speaking it's not polygamy it's polygyny, which is the marriage of a single man to more than one woman." Why so many insist on making this egghead and irrelevant distinction is beyond me. Maybe they think it gives them instant street cred since they obviously have thought very deeply about the issue--as shown by their exactness in linguistic parsing? No one is confused as to what we are talking about.

I would guess that polygamy is kind of technical and plural marriage sounds kind of like celestial marriage.

Me, I like to be historically accurate and just call 'em co-habs.

[_The Nehor]

I believe the original distinction comes from Joseph Smith. He always called it plural marriage. Polygamy is an incorrect term. Polygyny better describes what Joseph instituted. However, even that is slightly incorrect as polygyny does not necessarily mean that all the women are married to the man.

Hence, plural marriage.

[_skippy the dead]

This touches on another way certain apologists (I'm looking at you, Daniel C. Peterson) try to manipulate language to lessen the stigma of polygamy. He (and others) have been using the term "serial polygamy" to refer to those who have a succession of marriages or relationships, ostensibly to demonstrate that "mainstream" society has certain tendencies (to show that having multiple wives at once is not so different than having them spaced throughout a lifetime, perhaps?).

My problem with this is twofold: First, it completely disregards the meaning of the word "polygamy" - which is to have more than one spouse concurrently. So if you move from one spouse to the next, after severing the relationship with the first, there is no concurrent marriage (or relationship), and therefor no polygamy. So it is idiotic on its face. Second, I believe that the use of the phrase is purposely intended to inoculate the reader or audience to the word, and to make it appear less freakish. There's a very subversive element to it.

At any rate, I wish that these folks would quit using the moronic phrase.

[_Scottie]

"technically speaking it's not polygamy it's polygamy, which is the marriage of a single man to more than one woman."

Did you realize you said this twice?

[_John Larsen]

"technically speaking it's not polygamy it's polygamy, which is the marriage of a single man to more than one woman."

Did you realize you said this twice?

Oops. Fixed it. Thanks.

[_The Nehor]

"technically speaking it's not polygamy it's polygamy, which is the marriage of a single man to more than one woman."

Did you realize you said this twice?

Oops. Fixed it. Thanks.

Crap! Now I'm making eggheaded and irrelevant distinctions. Either that or being more accurate with my use of language to avoid being misunderstood....one of the two.

[_Jason Bourne]

I believe the original distinction comes from Joseph Smith. He always called it plural marriage. Polygamy is an incorrect term. Polygyny better describes what Joseph instituted. However, even that is slightly incorrect as polygyny does not necessarily mean that all the women are married to the man.

Hence, plural marriage.

He did? Where did he call in plural marriage? The only reference I know by Joseph Smith to plural marriage or polygamy is D&C 132. In all the other references that we have related to him he denies practicing having more than one wife.

[_John Larsen]

"technically speaking it's not polygamy it's polygamy, which is the marriage of a single man to more than one woman."

Did you realize you said this twice?

Oops. Fixed it. Thanks.

Crap! Now I'm making eggheaded and irrelevant distinctions. Either that or being more accurate with my use of language to avoid being misunderstood....one of the two.

It's just irrelevant parsing. Does anyone really misunderstand? In what way do you think they are going to misunderstand it? It is something like this:

Ed: Let's take your car to the park
Fred: Technically speaking, it's not a car it's a sedan.
Ed: Fine. Whatever.

Technically speaking polygyny is a subset of polygamy so every instance of plygyny is, in fact, an instance of polygamy. Point this difference out is completely meaningless.

[_The Nehor]

I believe the original distinction comes from Joseph Smith. He always called it plural marriage. Polygamy is an incorrect term. Polygyny better describes what Joseph instituted. However, even that is slightly incorrect as polygyny does not necessarily mean that all the women are married to the man.

Hence, plural marriage.

He did? Where did he call in plural marriage? The only reference I know by Joseph Smith to plural marriage or polygamy is D&C 132. In all the other references that we have related to him he denies practicing having more than one wife.

"The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on celestial and plural marriage, and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it, and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people would be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. We have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction." -Joseph Smith