What exactly Is Wrong with Polygamy anyway?

[KevinSim]

LOL..your church cares…it has been outlawed for a century or so…they don’t even recognized the fundies of Jeff’s, do you?

I don't recognize the FLDS as genuine Latter-day Saints.

Should the current leadership do an about face and simply allow men to have multiple wives and women have multiple husbands?

That's up to God. But it would surprise me very much if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints returned to actively practicing polygamy. In fact I don't want it to. I just don't understand why it should be illegal.

Do your homework and at least understand LDS doctrine and history, i.e. the ever lasting covenant and the continuation of seeds.

What does anything I've said have to do with LDS doctrine or history? I just want to know what rationale people use for opposing polygamy.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I just don't understand why it should be illegal.

Do your homework and at least understand LDS doctrine and history, i.e. the ever lasting covenant and the continuation of seeds.

What does anything I've said have to do with LDS doctrine or history? I just want to know what rationale people use for opposing polygamy.

[KevinSim]

Who in 19th century Utah wanted to be married is a matter of historical conjecture now, and at the time it was affected by social conditioning.

Maybe someone should contact the author of the essay and ask her/him how s/he came to the conclusion that everybody who wanted to be married was married.

Polygamy matches more than one mother to each father. What part of the math is unclear?

The part at the start where you assert that we have 100 men and 100 women, is unclear, and kind of naïve. The number of men who are willing to make the sacrifices necessary for a successful marriage, is significantly less than 100, the essay says, and we should find out what that number actually is before we draw any conclusions about what math really says. It's not unreasonable for a woman of faith to want the father of her children to share her faith, and I have reason to believe that in many faiths (if not all), including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there are three active women for every two active men.

The desire for the father of their children share their faith, stops those women from cohabiting with those men.

I didn't say anything about celibacy for men. I said those men were not willing to make the sacrifices necessary for successful marriages.

Or are you acknowledging that historical Mormon polygamy was sustained by pedogamy, and proposing for modern society a new kind of polygamy that has nothing to do with Mormon history?

I'm not acknowledging any pedogamy yet, but your second phrase is close; I'm asking what the reasons are for not having in modern society a new kind of polygamy that has nothing to do with Mormon history.

[Doctor Steuss]

Who in 19th century Utah wanted to be married is a matter of historical conjecture now, and at the time it was affected by social conditioning.

Maybe someone should contact the author of the essay and ask her/him how s/he came to the conclusion that everybody who wanted to be married was married.

Why is it the responsibility of others to find out why a source you provided made an unsupported assertion?

[Marcus]

Maybe someone should contact the author of the essay and ask her/him how s/he came to the conclusion that everybody who wanted to be married was married.

Why is it the responsibility of others to find out why a source you provided made an unsupported assertion?

Excellent question, and it ties in well with Doc’s description of sealioning as KevinSim’s approach.

For example, KS brings up the issue first:

. . ..The Gospel Topics essay on polygamy points out that while the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practiced polygamy, virtually everyone who wanted to be married was married….

And PS responds:

Mormon polygamy wasn't a few enthusiastically consenting polyamorous relationships. It was an officially promoted social norm that pushed all girls toward early marriages with older men who would then keep on marrying more young girls as the first ones aged.

But then KS ignores PS’ response, and asks again the question already answered, so PS responds again:

Then, Physics Guy, do you take issue with the Gospel Topics essay on polygamy on the LDS website that says when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practiced polygamy virtually everyone (including the male members) who wanted to be married were married?

Who in 19th century Utah wanted to be married is a matter of historical conjecture now, and at the time it was affected by social conditioning. So the essay is trying to use inherently dubious claims about past people's feelings to weasel out of simple arithmetic. Polygamy matches more than one mother to each father. What part of the math is unclear?

Shades responds as well:

Then, Physics Guy, do you take issue with the Gospel Topics essay on polygamy on the LDS website that says when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practiced polygamy virtually everyone (including the male members) who wanted to be married were married?

I'm not Physics Guy, but I definitely take issue with the Gospel Topics essay. It's nothing more than party propaganda, aimed at simple believers like you who won't bother to do the math that Physics Guy did.

As do I, asking for documentation:

Then, Physics Guy, do you take issue with the Gospel Topics essay on polygamy on the LDS website that says when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practiced polygamy virtually everyone (including the male members) who wanted to be married were married?

I looked at the essay, and yes, I would take issue:

…marriage became available to virtually all who desired it; per-capita inequality of wealth was diminished as economically disadvantaged women married into more financially stable households; and ethnic intermarriages were increased, which helped to unite a diverse immigrant population.. . ..

Is there any documentation to support this? There were no sources and the above contains quite a few very specific sociological and historical claims, but no sources were given.

Huckelberry wonders about documentation also, as did you, and here’s where we start over, this time with KS deflecting to wondering about his own source, instead of responding to any of the questions or responses to his question:

I cannot help but wonder how someone now would know that every male wishing marriage married. The statement sounds speculative.

Perhaps it would be worth it to ask the author of that Gospel Topics essay how s/he came to the conclusion that every male wishing marriage married.

And again:

How is its practice of polygamy any different from the LDS church's former practice of it?

Dr. Shades, I don't know. Maybe we should find out. Part of that finding out needs to include contacting the author of that Gospel Topics essay and asking her/him how s/he came to the conclusion s/he did.

But the coup de gras comes when KS actually went back to a post by PS that he had already responded to, where PS had already answered his question, and not only cut out most of PS’ response, but then responded to it again, by asking the same question again!

Who in 19th century Utah wanted to be married is a matter of historical conjecture now, and at the time it was affected by social conditioning.

Maybe someone should contact the author of the essay and ask her/him how s/he came to the conclusion that everybody who wanted to be married was married.

So yes, Doc is correct, this is just an exercise in sealioning for KS.

[IHAQ]

Maybe someone should contact the author of the essay and ask her/him how s/he came to the conclusion that everybody who wanted to be married was married.

Why is it the responsibility of others to find out why a source you provided made an unsupported assertion?

How very…MG2.0-like. Two peas in a disingenuous pod.

[malkie]

Why is it the responsibility of others to find out why a source you provided made an unsupported assertion?

How very…MG2.0-like. Two peas in a disingenuous pod.

Should we consider the possibility that KS simply cannot keep track of where he is in the thread, which arguments he has deployed, and which answers have been given to his questions?

I realize that the behaviour that we consistently see strongly suggests the aquatic creature, but KS may just be overwhelmed. Of course, if that is the case then we could say it's his own doing, but at least it would not be disingenuous or malicious.

[huckelberry]

It has been quite a while since I read Compton's In Sacred Loneliness. I remember being both impressed and a bit puzzled by the clarity with which he observed the loneliness and unhappiness occasioned by polygamy. He had to view it as an individual sacrifice made in honor of faith in the principal, the authority of the church, and the women's understanding of the will of God.

Well there also may be a consolation in thinking a person is establishing a better personal spiritual foundation and hope for themselves and family.

I do not remember if Compton considered it but it may be possible some people would accept the extra pain and personal strain for an elevation in social standing in the community. It can be a connection to those in greater authority.

It is hard to imagine people undertaking all the potential for misery in polygamy without these buffers and aids.To do it so a few women may avoid childlessness would at best be a hard row to hoe.

[Rivendale]

It has been quite a while since I read Compton's In Sacred Loneliness. I remember being both impressed and a bit puzzled by the clarity with which he observed the loneliness and unhappiness occasioned by polygamy. He had to view it as an individual sacrifice made in honor of faith in the principal, the authority of the church, and the women's understanding of the will of God.

Well there also may be a consolation in thinking a person is establishing a better personal spiritual foundation and hope for themselves and family.

I do not remember if Compton considered it but it may be possible some people would accept the extra pain and personal strain for an elevation in social standing in the community. It can be a connection to those in greater authority.

It is hard to imagine people undertaking all the potential for misery in polygamy without these buffers and aids.To do it so a few women may avoid childlessness would at best be a hard row to hoe.

They sometimes refer to it as an Abrahamic sacrifice regarding Isaac.....difference is those women had to go through with it.

[Dr. Shades]

Smith kept it hidden because he knew Emma was strongly opposed to it. Just because one's spouse is strongly opposed to something doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

That's a fantastic point. Having made it, now it's time to put your money where your mouth is. Please tell your wife that you want to begin practicing polygamy--not necessarily due to some connection with Mormonism, but because there's nothing wrong with it in principle--then tell us whether she is able to find anything wrong with it.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has run DNA tests on all [t]he children born to Joseph Smith's polygamous wives during the times he might have fathered them, and none of them matched Smith's DNA. So it didn't keep in line with Jacob 2:30. This has puzzled me to no end. Joseph Smith was a very fertile man. He and Emma got pregnant nine times during the relatively short time they were married. How does a man as fertile as Smith was consummate forty marriages without a single plural wife getting pregnant? I haven't been able to figure this one out.

John C. Bennett was Joseph's abortionist. No, that's not a joke.