Rational justification for Polygamy?

[_wenglund]

I see the disagreement on this issue being largely a matter of emphasis. Those who view marriage mostly in terms of "family", may be less troubled by the notion of plural marriage. Whereas those who view marriage mostly in terms of "spousal intimacy", will more likley find plural marriage (concurrent, not serial) objectionable.

And, given the strong narcissistic tendancy of today's modern culture, it is not surprising which of the two emphasis above is most prevalent.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

I see the disagreement on this issue being largely a matter of emphasis. Those who view marriage mostly in terms of "family", may be less troubled by the notion of plural marriage. Whereas those who view marriage mostly in terms of "spousal intimacy", will more likley find plural marriage (concurrent, not serial) objectionable.

And, given the strong narcissistic tendancy of today's modern culture, it is not surprising which of the two emphasis above is most prevalent.

Wow. I mean wow.

Seeing marriage in terms of spousal intimacy has narcissistic tendencies????

Wow.

This is telling in soooo many ways.

[_wenglund]

Wow. I mean wow.

Seeing marriage in terms of spousal intimacy has narcissistic tendencies????

Wow. This is telling in soooo many ways.

It certainly tells me that you haven't a clue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_asbestosman]

Maybe you can explain something for me Wade. What difference, if any, do you seee between the sealing of spouses together and that of sealing parents to children? Do they all end up together in the afterlife and in what manner? Do they live together and counsel together for creating worlds? How does it work with in-laws, etc.?

[_gramps]

Will wrote:

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.

I don't know Will. (Oh, congratulations by the way.)

The three women my great great great grandfather brought from England to the valley, among with many others from England that had converted, were, I am sure, surprised that immediately after arriving in the Valley, they were introduced to the Governor as he was affectionately called, and were sealed all three to my ggg grandfather at the same time. He then proceeded home with the three new wives in tow, to introduce them to his other wives.

What choice did any of these women have really? The three he married had left their family in England and had been entrusted into his care. He promised their mother he would 'take care' of them. Little did they know. They had no money. They were stuck in the valley. What? Should they have said 'no.?' Could they have said 'no?' Really?

And when he knocked on his wives' door after being away in England for 5 years, what could they say? At least, finally his first put an end to it. She divorced him later. And moved out. When the mother arrived late from England, she was surprised, to say the least. What could she have done? Again, no money. Stuck in the desert. What is that, if not force?

[_beastie]

It certainly tells me that you haven't a clue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

We already know you've never been married. I'm going to assume that, since you're LDS, that you've also never been in a long-term, intimate relationship, either. I don't know if this is why you have such a distorted view of marriage, but, believe me, anyone who thinks seeing marriage primarily in terms of spousal intimacy indicates narcissism has a very distorted view of marriage and, likely, intimate relationships over-all. I would have thought all those years of watching Dr. Phil may have made a dent, but apparently not.

The fact is that marriage must be primarily about spousal intimacy in order to create a loving, thriving home in which the children can thrive as well. Marriages that are not primarily about spousal intimacy do not provide healthy environments for children. Since you've never had children, either, you may not realize this, but all children want to know that their parents love each other deeply, and value their intimacy as the primary core of their marriage.

You ought to stick to subjects you know something about, and marriage isn't one of them.

[_Yoda]

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."

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Will.

Do you have any particular books you would recommend? (Links to any possible online books would be appreciated as well.)

[_William Schryver]

Will wrote:

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.

I don't know Will. (Oh, congratulations by the way.)

The three women my great great great grandfather brought from England to the valley, among with many others from England that had converted, were, I am sure, surprised that immediately after arriving in the Valley, they were introduced to the Governor as he was affectionately called, and were sealed all three to my ggg grandfather at the same time. He then proceeded home with the three new wives in tow, to introduce them to his other wives.

What choice did any of these women have really? The three he married had left their family in England and had been entrusted into his care. He promised their mother he would 'take care' of them. Little did they know. They had no money. They were stuck in the valley. What? Should they have said 'no.?' Could they have said 'no?' Really?

And when he knocked on his wives' door after being away in England for 5 years, what could they say? At least, finally his first put an end to it. She divorced him later. And moved out. When the mother arrived late from England, she was surprised, to say the least. What could she have done? Again, no money. Stuck in the desert. What is that, if not force?

gramps,

With all due respect, the story you seem to be suggesting as factual (that these three young women had no prior knowledge of, nor gave their consent to being married to this man, and then had no subsequent power or opportunity to "escape" from the virtual dungeon of their "forced" marriages) is patently ridiculous. In other words, I'm proclaiming the whole story (or at least the version you are attempting to pawn off on us) as BS.

There is absolutely no precedent for such a thing. Plain and simple, things such as you describe simply DID NOT HAPPEN. If you sincerely believe otherwise, you are the victim of either misinformation or your own ignorance.

Who were this man and women of whom you speak?

[_Morrissey]

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.

And here is no better demonstrated your blind devotion to the Mormon tribe and your willingness to overlook/rationalize clear moral failings of LDS Inc and its leaders so as to defend the faith.

One comes away with the impression that there's no behavior, no doctrine, no moral failing of LDS Inc., its leaders, or its God that you won't rationalize in defense of the faith.

I'm actually quite disappointed.

[_Daniel Peterson]

And here is no better demonstrated your blind devotion to the Mormon tribe and your willingness to overlook/rationalize clear moral failings of LDS Inc and its leaders so as to defend the faith.

One comes away with the impression that there's no behavior, no doctrine, no moral failing of LDS Inc., its leaders, or its God that you won't rationalize in defense of the faith.

I'm actually quite disappointed.

Happy to disappoint!

You presented no argument, no historical data. Only assertions, tricked out with the occasional expression of contempt.

If I'd immediately genuflected before such insubstantial stuff, it would have been shameful to me.