Polygamy...

Needs2know has actually got hold of a fairly important point, I think, though it’s getting somewhat obscured by her defensive reactions (sorry Needs, I do sympathize with your indignation at the abuses you mention but the precision-&-clarity guys have a point too).

Namely, polygamy (particularly polygyny) can act as an institutionalized tool of oppression, depending on its cultural context. A former roommate of mine from Mali described to me their parallel systems of monogynous and polygynous marriage: under Muslim law, a man may have up to four wives, but under Mali law, he and his wife (at the time of his first marriage) have to specify their choice of either monogyny or polygyny and then stick to that choice thereafter. That is, a declared monogynist may not take additional wives (unless, I presume, he divorces the first one and then enters a polygynist union), but a declared polygynist may (though I suppose he doesn’t have to), and he need not obtain the existing wife’s/wives’ consent to it.

My roommate (whose marriage was monogynous and who was spending a couple years at school in the States while her husband looked after their sons in Mali) noted that the polygynous husbands tended to be much more controlling of their wives’ activities, more domineering in their families, and more likely physically to restrain or abuse their wives or children. (SingleDad, I know that this counts as generalizing from anecdotal evidence, :slight_smile: but I got the impression that it’s not really disputed that this is how it works in Malian society.) In other words, there was a culture of polygyny that reinforced patriarchal dominance.

Similarly, it sounds as though the polygynist culture (small and marginal though it may be) described by Needs2know in Utah also routinely uses polygyny as an instrument of patriarchal oppression and abuse. These aren’t just a bunch of miscellaneous bad apples who all happen to be mistreating their wives and children: they’re part of a male-supremacist culture in which polygyny plays a central role. So yes, this polygamous lifestyle is breeding abuse. I hasten to add that I don’t believe that current LDS doctrine or polyamorist thought in general provides any encouragement for this sort of abuse. The polygamous “lifestyles” that SingleDad and redtail describe sound like very different kettles of fish from this.

Speaking of which: redtail, I am startled that you object to Arnold’s stipulation that the hypothetical mono/polygamous “family contract” would require unanimous consent of the existing family members in order to add a new one. Monogamists are not allowed to marry someone against his or her will, so why should polygamists be able to? If you don’t have unanimous consent to adding a new partner to a polygamous marriage, then someone is being married against his or her will, and hell yes, the government should interfere with it. If you don’t like the government messing around in your life to that extent, you can simply avoid getting a government-sanctioned “family contract” for your union, and you can make whatever unofficial arrangements you want.

Kimstu

Needs2Know:

As long as you state it this clearly: “the practice of polygamy in Utah that is based in the early tenents of the LDS church”, I have no problem with what you’re saying. In fact, I’ll make up a shorter form for you: how about ‘pseudo-Mormon polygyny’.

I can’t quite figure out why you keep repeating the same thing over and over, since no one’s really arguing with you, but I certainly have no disagreement as long as you state it that clearly.

I’ve never disagreed with you on the abuses occurring in certain families in Utah. In fact, I have stated several times that I agree that those individuals should be prosecuted for their crimes of abuse, incest, etc. Part of the problem, which you don’t appear to understand, is that those men are not legally married to all of those women. They can NOT be prosecuted for bigamy unless they are legally married. That is why they are not prosecuted for bigamy, not because of some conspiracy of Mormons.

As far as not-marrying underage girls (no license) - that doesn’t really matter. If she is under the age of consent, then any sexual activity with her falls under into the category of Statutory Rape. Again, no need for bigamy prosecutions there.
Basically we’re in agreement on the specific situations that you’ve recently learned about: they are wrong and should be stopped. And I will agree with you that the specific marital setup designed by the LDS church is based on patriarchal tenets that can promote abuse; I believe I stated that earlier.
However, this is a subject that is part of my way of life, not something that I’ve gotten righteously indignant over after seeing a slanted television program. So you can understand that, if you continue to make unjustified statements about polygamy in general, then I will continue to call you on it. As (evidently) will others here who know better.

Kimstu:

I will absolutely agree that, in certain situations, polygyny can be used to enforce and further oppression of women, especially in an already oppressive culture. As can monogyny.

Nonetheless, I will not quietly allow polygamy in general to be tarred with the same broad brush as a few fringe elements of a local religion. Okay?

I did find your description of Mali marital laws quite interesting - that’s not a setup I’ve heard of. I’m guessing that there is some sort of societo-cultural framework that ensures the woman has a free choice in making the initial contract? What if both parties change their mind? Can they revise their contract?

One point - as I understand it, Muslim law allows a man to have multiple wives, but the existing wives must unanimously consent to the marriage of any new wife. (How effective this is in practice depends on which Muslim culture you’re observing.)

As far as government intervention in a ‘family contract’ to ensure unanimity of consent - yes, I definitely object. I would have to leave that decision up to the family. I would not object to that (i.e., rules for adding new spouses) being one of the terms that must be spelled out in the contract, but each family should be able to determine its own rules for adding new members. This is based upon practicality over theory - I’ve seen and spoken to too many people in COMPLETELY DIFFERENT family setups to ever believe that any government could figure it out well enough to make good decisions.

Since Arnold clearly stated that any member of the family could leave at any time without anyone else’s consent, I would take that to mean that an individual could NOT be forced to marry unwillingly. They could leave, instead. FWIW, as in the Muslim law above, I don’t think that having a ‘unanimous consent’ law will prevent oppression or abuse, either. So, in addition to believing it to be wrong, I think it’s an ineffective idea as well.

Mind you, any family contract that I signed would sure as hell give me veto power over any new marriage. I ain’t that stupid! :slight_smile: I just know better than to think that my methods work best for everyone else.

Make sense?

Most of the Polygamy cases they have been talking about DO involve child abuse, incest, and coercion. I did not see that special, but I saw an earlier special. The “women” all had that glazed over “happy” look, several were related, and one was a daughter. It should be stopped, but it is winked at. And just for the record, the man was not part of the “mainstream” LDS church, but instead one of the offshoot cults.

WE are not talking here about my one freind, with 2 “wives”, both adults, unrelated, no coercion, one legal, and the other “livein”. They did it as part of a “Pagan” (their word, not mine) lifestyle. they all had jobs, and split stuff 3 ways. There is no real problem with that, except perhaps to some few persons morals. Our problem/thread is with “sickos”, mainly in Utah, mainly professing some belief in some part of Mormonism; who coerce underage and related women, thru a program of religous brainwashing, into being their wifes/slaves. This is evil.

Incidentally, originally the only allowed Polygamy in Utah/Mormon law, was for a man to marry his brothers’ widow(s), so she had a father for her kids. Not such a bad thing to do in frontier days. Of course, it degraded into coerced pedophilia & incest–sometimes. Please note, I am not saying all or even many Mormons were bad, they had just as many “baddies” (or maybe less) than any other group. They just had one “sin” few else commited, other groups made up for it in rampant drunkeness and other “non-mormon” sins.

Actually, Polygamy was originally put into effect by the Mormon church for two reasons…

Reason 1: They had WAAAAY more women than men, and they wanted all the women to have men take care of them (don’t say this was sexist of them, ‘cuz everywhere in the freakin’ country at the time, EVERYONE had that opinion).

Reason 2: To make Mormon babies. Yup, instead of getting a new member to the church every nine months, they got TEN new members every nine months. Basically, it was a decision of desperate necessity.

Why did they give up polygamy? Heck, I don’t know. The official reason seems to be in order to conform. I don’t doubt that. But I’m sure that there was a point that it would have just been way too inconvenient to keep up the practice of polygamy.

According to official Mormon church doctrine, all polygamists are excommunicated. Therefore, you’ll never find a Mormon polygamist. However, there are a lot of people who probably enjoy the “power trip” of having a dozen women in servitude, and claiming to be “Mormon” works as an ample cover.

In spite of needs2know’s protestations in this thread and the related thread, he’s most assuredly a bigot and is merely Mormon-bashing and Utah-bashing here.

So far, we’ve seen “My brother-in-law’s a Mormon” as a defense against that charge. That ranks right down there with “some of my best friends are” as a defense.

We’ve also seen an A&E special and an athiest website touted as valid proof of the bashing assertions. Another poster has already shown why that’s not much better than “some of my best friends.”

We’ve also seen an incident from the 1950s announced as proof that this is a terrible thing happening right now. Anybody care to check a calendar for the current date?

Other posters have also indicated that the LDS church’s stance on polygamy is decidently against it and some of the reasons behind that current stance. They did, however, fail to mention one reason the church may have been in favour of it in the past: Mormon men were getting killed by bigoted people back then. Kind of hard to repopulate without the men, now isn’t it?

FWIW: the case from the 1950s seems to be the one on which the movie “Child Bride of Short Creek” was based. Wasn’t that outside of Utah? So, enlightened ones, exactly how would reforming Utah and its government help those folks?

You need witnesses and evidence to prosecute. Failing to get those does not constitute government sanctioning of the crime. Get off it, you bigot.

How many of them killed each other off through your “Blood Atonement” thingy?

I did not get any of my information from an anti-mormon site. First of all I got a little hint about how terrified the governing body of the established LDS church is of mainstream Christian denominations a couple of years ago when I read a book about the biggest forgery scam ever pulled off in this country. Sorry, I called my Ma yesterday and she couldn’t remember the name of the guy or the book either. It will come to me. I’m sure that you have heard of the “white salamander letter” scandal in the LDS church. Why would the Brethern of the church be so willing to pay such a high price to supress this kind of information? You know the reason. Because many other Christian denominations feel that the entire religon is based on the very clever writings and machinations of a con-man, Joseph Smith. Not to mention the fact that if their own followers started to believe that Joe Smith started his carreer scaming people on the East Coast by using mystic practices like divination to find artifacts they might just start questioning the validity of his claims that he was contacted by God. Many people evidently in the LDS church have discovered that their religous history has been alterted and supressed and have left the church for these reasons.

The truth is I have recently become more and more dissoluioned with the established church in general, again. This is not to say that I no longer talk to God or that I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. But I went most of my life believing that the Bible was the literal and final word of God, and now I find that there are many more religous writings and ideas to which I have not been exposed. Why? Because it was decided at some time that some of these writings would be included in the Bible and some would not. There have also been additional discoveries since the church in the 4th century pretty much chose what would be contained in the gospels and what wouldn’t. It is also no suprise to me that these bishops and early church leaders were men. Historically women played a very important role in the early Christian church. But for some reason, just like is happening today, (re. The recent Southern Baptist convention and their stand on women) men are terrified of giving women the spritual freedom that I firmly believe God intends for us to have.

So, the LDS church is not the only Judeo/Christian belief system that is determined to shut women out, very many of them are. I just do not believe this is the message that Jesus intended to convey to us. I believe that his message has been perverted by men down through the ages. Why are so many men so determined to continue holding dominion over us? It isn’t like men and women can actually do without each other in the grand scheme of things. God intended for us to be together, to live, work, and raise children together. How would it hurt us if women were allowed to exercise their own spritual freedom. I believe that the leaders in the church should be the individuals who are…for lack of a better way of putting it…the most spiritually mature…regardless of their gender or their age. Yet many churchs do not allow women deacons, elders, or ministers. I believe this hurts the church. Beside the fact that it alienates women, it denys the church perhaps the benefit of the spiritual wisdom that so many women are capable of sharing.

So there…if the LDS church is oppressing women’s religous freedom then it isn’t a very far stretch for them, like other churches, to carry that doctrine even further…right into our very homes where men and women are taught that a woman should submit to the man spiritually, emotionally, physically, economically…etc. etc. etc. And yes, you can argue all you want that is not what is intended but that is exactly what does occur because it is not only sanctioned by the church but encouraged.

Needs2know

Quick question: SingleDad, how do you define polyfidelity? I don’t see it in my dictionary.

Ellen,

I am not SingleDad nor do I play him on this message board ;), but I can answer your question for you.

Here’s a pretty good definition for polyfidelity (from the http://www.polyamory.org site):

Polyfidelity: Relationship involving more than two people who have made a commitment to keep the sexual activity within the group and not have outside partners. (Rumor has it that this term was coined by the group Kerista.)

Hope that helps!

Sorry if I stole your glory, SingleDad! :slight_smile:

Hiya redtail. You said:

Indeed, please don’t—perhaps I might choose to be part of a polygamous union myself someday, and I’m relying on you to have softened up public opinion beforehand! :slight_smile:

Oh yes, both parties have to give their legal consent to the monogynous or polygynous agreement.

Good question—I don’t know, but I presume so. Divorce is possible in Muslim law (though I think it’s much simpler for a husband to obtain it than a wife), so I suppose they could always dissolve the initial contract and obtain a new one.

Hmm, I see your point. I guess that what I’d want to insist on is that the current membership in any contractual family be always clearly reflected in the family contract itself. That is, since this is a legally recognized union, the law has a right to know exactly whom it’s recognizing within it. So anytime someone enters or leaves the union, an updated version of the contract has to be filed, specifying who is now bound by it. You are right that this shouldn’t require protestations of complete mutual satisfaction on the part of all contracting parties: e.g., Bhima and Arjuna (to switch religious contexts here :slight_smile: ) could agree that they are not happy about having Draupadi take a sixth husband, but as long as they sign the updated contract that also includes husband number 6, they have legally agreed to accept him as part of their union. And if they don’t sign, they haven’t invalidated the whole union, they’ve just removed themselves from it. Is that what you’re getting at? (You’re also right that it makes the most sense to have the initial contract stipulate where veto power lies, but the government shouldn’t mandate it.)

Kimstu

Hi Kimstu!

Um, I’m not sure that the one implies the other. As I mentioned previously, I believe Muslim law requires that all wives unanimously consent to any new wife chosen by their husband. This sounds peachy, but in practice in some places (insert appropriate ‘I’m not knocking Islam in general, just it’s (mis-)implementation in some specific places’ disclaimer here), is less than effective. If you’re given the options of (1)not eating & daily beatings until you sign, or (2)sign ‘of your own free will’, which one are YOU gonna pick? That’s why I asked if there were social or cultural
rules to ensure free choice - those rules are often much more effective than the legal ones.

YES!! :slight_smile:
Of course, in ideal (for me) circumstances, this wouldn’t happen, but I can see the possibility.

As I said before, the tricky part comes in when you try to figure out the gory details. If I decide that I no longer want to be in the family because the family as a whole is going to marry X, what property is mine? What are my visitation and custody rights? All of those dirty questions that get dragged through divorce court.

As complicated as those can get between just two people, can you imagine what it would be like with four or five?!!!?? That’s why I would like to see requirements for marital contracts that must be legally filed. (I think they should be required for couples, too, BTW.)

Crikey, you can find anything on the web these days. Here’s some bits of the Mali marital code from the “equalitynow” site:

As I understood it from my Malian roommate, a woman’s entering into a polygynous marriage with a man legally implies automatic consent to his subsequently marrying additional wives (up to the legal limit of four). Every subsequent nth wife is also legally assumed to have agreed to his marrying 4-n more wives at his own discretion. This takes care of the requirement of spousal consent under Muslim law; practically speaking, the wives have no veto power over subsequent choices once they agree to enter the union. (Prior to entering the union, they are presumably either free agents or under a male relative’s protection, so coercion by the prospective husband is not an issue.)

Kimstu

As they are for traditional Jewish marriages, in fact (well, there’s no rule about filing the ketubah or marriage contract with the government, but it has to be available for inspection at the wedding and is usually prominently displayed in the couple’s home).

Gee, we’ve been pretty much across the religious spectrum here, haven’t we? Mormon, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish…

Kimstu

This is long…it is also only a book review…looks rather interesting to me…especiallys since the reviewer is stating that the author is attempting to give as accurate and unbiased account as possible. This also demonstrates that the practice of polygamy in Utah and it’s border states is in direct compliance with the early practices of the LDS church. The book looks very interesting, especially from a historical standpoint. Very often the role of women in early America is not adequately touched upon. Just another aspect of our history.

Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The
Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, (Signature
Books, 1997) 788 pages, cloth, ISBN
1-56085-085-X

Need2know…have a nice weekend

[Edited out most of the text out of copyright (and excessive length) concerns. Links and minor excerpts, please, guys. --Gaudere]

Needs2Know: Aside from its historical interest, I don’t really see what you’re getting at by your last post and how it relates to the OP.

I’ll lurk on this thread to see if anything interesting happens, but I doubt I’ll post again.

If people in Utah are breaking the law, I expect this is a problem for the appropriate law-enforcement agencies there.

If you’re criticizing the Mormon church and theology, then I’ll move on. Last I heard we had absolute freedom of religion; people may do as they see fit. If anyone is actually being coerced by the church or its members, again, that is an issue for law-enforcement agencies. The illegality of kidnapping, rape, child abuse, spousal abuse is not in question.

If you’re claiming polygamy causes such abuse, I’ll wait until you post any actual evidence on the matter. I’ve already made myself clear that anecdotal evidence, hasty generalizations and inversion of cause and effect do not constitute scientific evidence of an assertion.

If you are interested in other historical poly lifestyles, you might want to check out Without Sin; The Life and Death of the Oneida Community, an account of the 19th century New York commune. It is interesting to note that the Kerista Commune, of which I was a member, considered the Oneida Community a seminal experience in crafting our own lifestyle.

Monty: it is kinda odd that you call people “fundies” as if it were a curse word, and accuse them of belonging to odd Christian sects as if that proves they are incapable of carrying on an arguement about Grammar, but when some attack the sick & perverted activities of a few people that just happen to be connected to the LDS/Mormon Church, you get all excited and angry and start tossing about words like “bigot” and “…-bashing”. Does the word “hypocrite” mean anything to you? Or is it OK for you to attack religons, and those other people’s beliefs, as long as we don’t step on YOUR shadow?

That last was a bit over the line, but I was provoked. Sorry to any that got their nose hairs singed. :smiley:

FYI: I did not provoke you here. Also FYI: “Church of the 9 Commandments” is a term that’s been used on this board to describe liars. You are a proven liar.

Monty: you sound like a very reactionary person. I think you are only seeing the things you want to see.

Perhaps you’re reading that into it, Lotus. As it is, you are incorrect in your perception. “Perception is Reality” is not always fact.