What's wrong with polygamy?

Mark Twain wrote about polygamy among the Mormons in Roughing It. I can’t find my copy to give you an exact quote but he said something to the effect that he was, personally, going to put an end to it, he had the youth and energy to do it – until he saw the Mormon women. They were such pathetic, ungainly, homely creatures that any man who would marry even one of them deserved to be called a saint, and we should all take our hats off to the man who would marry fifty.

He also wrote a humorous account of dining with Brigham Young and being watched carefully to ensure that he didn’t give any gift to a child. If he had attempted to do so he would have been forcibly restrained. The reason given was that if he had succeeded, all the rest of the children would also want one and supplying all his children with gifts would have bankrupted Brother Brigham.

As a card-carrying Mormon I have heard a lot of theories about why polygamy (technically, polygyny – polyandry was never permitted) was allowed in the early days of the Mormon Church. Most of them center around an alleged imbalance in numbers – there were a lot more women than men and these women had to be provided for somehow. Sort of a welfare system, I suppose. There was not, and has never been, an official pronouncement stating why the practice was allowed (not merely allowed, but encouraged), just that it was sanctioned by God. There is also a lot of confusion about how prevalent the practice actually was and how it worked (and how well it worked).

The practice was ended, of course, when the anti-polygamy laws passed by Congress were upheld by the Supreme Court. The Church was disenfranchised and all its properties siezed by the federal government. The Church leaders felt that destruction of the church organization was too high a price to pay for compliance and petitioned the Lord for relief, which was granted. Since that time the practice of polygamy has been grounds for excommunication from the Church. (Those who were already polygamously married were allowed to quietly continue, with the consent of the Church and the government, as long as polygamy was no longer advocated and no new polygamous marriages were authorized.)

Because the commandment to practice “plural marriage” was ended due to government pressure, there is a small faction within the Mormon community (not the Mormon church) who believe that God has not, in fact, rescinded the commandment and that the practice should continue. This is the source of the ongoing Utah (mostly) polygamists. The Mormon Church doesn’t sanction or permit this, but the practitioners usually claim authorization, either directly or through some secret sub-organization that only the most faithful (i.e., themselves) are allowed access to.

The general belief among the Latter-day Saints is that marriage is ordained of God and that He can control the way it is practiced. In practice this means that historically polygamy has been authorized on occasion, notably in the Old Testament. The prophet Samuel stated that David’s sin with Bathsheba was not polygamy but adultery (and the accompanying murder, of course). His other wives and concubines were not considered sinful. OTOH, polygamy is specifically mentioned as one of the sins that needed correction by one of the prophets in the Book of Mormon. So, as I stated earlier, the general belief is that polygamy is a sin when God says it’s a sin, and it’s not when He says it’s not. The tricky part is in finding a reliable source for what God says, and we Mormons believe we have that.

Perhaps it’s worth noting that what has been discussed so far is technically polgyny, the practice of one man having more than one wife. Since this is the most common form of polygamy (having more than one spouse), the term polygamy has come to mean polygyny in casual discourse.

That having been said, historically speaking, the move to outlaw polygyny, culminating in a federal law against polygamy in 1874, was motivated in part by anti-Mormon sentiment, including wild accusations of “White Slavery” – the strange notion that Mormons were kidnapping little girls and dragging them off to Utah to be forced into marriage. Anti-polygamy crusaders were often suffragettes and other advocates of women’s rights who didn’t think that any women in her right mind would voluntarily enter a polgynous marriage–they were obviously being forced into domestic and sexual slavery. The push for women’s sufferage in Utah succeed partly because it was beleived that the women of Utah would vote overwhelmingly against the evil instituion of polgamy. Ironically, Mormon women had positions of power in the Church that they exceeded what they could expect from the secular government!

Today, I think much of the opposition to polygamy in the form that it is practiced by certain splinter groups of Mormons has less to do with the actual practice of polygamy and more to do with the partiriarchal society it fosters. There have certainly been egregious instances of domestic abuse in polygynous households, though I have not been convinced that there are proportionally more instances of abuse in polygynouse households than in traditional marriages. It’s also certainly true that Mormon polygynists follow the doctrine that the husband is lord and master and his power over his house is absolute–but women know this when they voluntarily enter into a marriage with a man who holds this belief–and probably they believe the same thing.

I may be mistaken (and i’m sure it will be quickly pointed out if I am) but while the OT Hebrews were polygamous, the Greeks and Romans practiced monogamy. The Israelites, as a conquered people, would have given up the practice. As the Roman culture spread over Europe, monogamy would become the norm in Western Europe. The Christian church was much more Roman than middle eastern by the time it became the dominant religion, and of course western civilization was centered in Rome.

Of interest to me is why does polygamy almost always mean one man with more than one wife? From a purely physical standpoint, one woman can easily acomodate more men than vice-versa.
Personally, I’d be uncomfortable either way. Let alone pooped. :wink:
Peace,
mangeorge

Maybe I’m the only one that this solution immediately jumped out at, but speaking as a modern feminist (or, equalist as I prefer sometimes), it’s morally wrong for polygamy to occur (yes, either polyandry OR polygyny) because the marriage relationship stops being a serious partnership of two people and becomes more of an “owning” thing, like a harem.

I mean, seriously, most polygamy is polygyny, and I can’t quite see a working partnership of three equals. It’s not a three way marriage, it’s the man having two wives.

That’s just my opinion, curious to know how everyone else think polygamy sits with our modern views of gender rights.

        Lauren   =>

IIRC, polyandry as a cultural phenomenon (not just occasional occurence) is not unheard of but is very rare. Some speculations as to the reasons for this are listed above. I would guess they fall into two general categories: 1. General predominance of patriarchal societies; 2. Differences in desired sexual frequency for the sexes. (I am generalizing here that women desire sex less frequently than men. I know there are many exceptions to this. And certainly billions of couples have learned to accommodate each other’s preferences for sexual frequency without resorting to other partners.) A third possible reason, which is more likely an effect rather than a cause, is that the parenthood of polygynous children is never in doubt – a man with numerous wives (assuming they are faithful(!)) knows the children are his; a woman with numerous husbands wouldn’t be certain who the father was (unless she kept a strict schedule and very good records).

LaurAnge -

See my comments above.

What’s with the “owning” thing? My husband and I don’t “own” each other; therefore I cannot see why multiple relationships would have an “owning” context.

If multiple marriages were legal it would have to go both ways. In my fantasy where I get “time off” from a husband with multiple wives, presumably, I could fill that time with another husband if I chose. I can imagine many men who would like to share the chores with someone else.

The logistics would get very messy very quickly, but that’s another topic.

Perhaps my views are different because 1) I am a serial monogamist (in my third and last marriage. Didn’t plan it that way, but here I am.) and 2) I need a certain amount of solitude.

Polygamy could solve several problems. The old problem of a man would have to be affluent to afford many wives just doesn’t apply any more in this era where wives aren’t owned, they can easily get divorced, and where the expectation is that they bring in an income as well. Here’s a list of problems modern polygamy could solve:

Problem: Many men want sex far more often then women. This leave the man feeling frustrated and unloved, and the woman feeling like all he wants is her body, and constantly at that. Having several wives is an opportunity to more easily match sex drives.

Problem: Some men are driven to sleep around for variety’s sake. In a polygamous household, variety is not a problem.

Problem: Two adults are just not enough to raise children without a lot of stress, yet our modern lifestyle doesn’t have a lot of room for multi-generation families living in the same house. A household with more adults offers more flexibility in handling children. For an added bonus, sex doesn’t have to come to a screeching halt with the advent of children in a polygamous household, because one adult can watch the child while the husband and one of the other wives spend quality time together (in and out of the bedroom). And likewise, one adult can watch children while the others do chores.

Problem: Sometimes, two incomes still isn’t enough. In a house full of working adults who are all pooling their incomes, there’s a lot of flexibility. If someone wants to go back to school in order to change careers, that’s less of a problem. If someone wants to be a novelist or an artist, that’s a whole lot more doable in a polygamous marriage.

What is not clear how it would work is the relationships themselves. For instance, how do the wives interact? Would they compete and fight, as Jeff_42 stated? Does it work better if the women are bisexual? If the wives are bisexual, does that undermine their relationship with the man? Do the adults all sleep in one big bed, or does each woman have her own room, and the man sleep in a different one each night?

If the household starts out being a couple, just how do the following wives join the marriage. Husband cheats on wife, falls in love with other woman, tells wife, then they decide to have a polygamous marriage? Or do they both go looking for the other wives? Just HOW does that work?

How do the children feel about their having multiple moms and bed-hopping dad?

In a monagamous marriage, abusive spouses tend to end up marrying spouses who are subconciously want to be a victim. In a polygamous marriage with abuse present, what are the dynamics? In the case of an abusive man, are many wives harder to abuse, or would the wives actually subconsiously sabotage other wives attempts to end the abuse? In the case of abusive wives, if one wife can be a nag, can three wives be a living hell?

mangeorge, technically, polygamy means having more than one spouse at the same time, either many wives or many husbands. Polygyny is the condition of hacing many wives simultaneously, and polyandry is the condition of having many husbands simultaneously. Polyandy is rare, but it does exist (otherwise there probably wouldn’t be a word for it. :slight_smile: ).

Because of the rarity of polyandry, in casual discussion, most people seem to mean polygyny when they say polygamy.

polygamy
polygyny
polyandry

The accuzations of “white slavery” at the turn of the century, and the accuzations of “child molestation” today are unfounded. Yes, some 12 year old girls do get molested by their uncles in polygamous families, but so do some 12 year old girls in non-polygamous families. There is no way to prove that bad stuff is more likely to happen to young girls in one family type.

There is always some common agrument used to disparage a group of people you don’t like. 100 years ago it was white slavery, in the 1980s it was devil worship, and today it’s child molestation.
The really good argument against polygamy is that there wouldn’t be enough women to go around. If I have 10 wives then the are 9 guys with no women! These 9 women less guys are going to cause trouble.
side note about incomes–

Polygamy is commonly practiced in Saudia Arabia where the people are rich, and in Egypt were the people are poor. Money is not a factor.

Polyandry was practiced by Joseph Smith, who married several women who were already married. Of course, it was in secret and they didn’t all live together.

Census records will tell you that there were never more women in Utah than men. Like the rest of the Old West, there was a large majority of men.

Polygamy was not only
“sanctioned” by God, it was
“commanded.” Brigham Young and others taught that a man couldn’t get to heaven with only one wife. The more wives, the more glory in the hereafter. Women were promised more glory in the hereafter by marrying a higher level authority. This is how the leaders persuaded many women to marry them, and sometimes women left their first husbands to marry “up.”

Mormon historian BH Roberts came up with a figure of 2% of Mormons participating in polygamy. This is the way he arrived at this figure: He took the year 1888, when Utah was undergoing serious pressure from the government to stop the practice. Many men were in prison, many men had abandoned plural wives, many divorces had taken place, and few new marriages were being made. Roberts took the number of men actually living in polygamy at that time and divided it into the total population including women and children. 2%. In polygamy’s heyday, the 1850s and 1860s, the percent of Mormons living in polygamy was probably 40-60%.

The 1890 didn’t bring an abrupt end to polygamous marriages. They continued to be made in secret for another twenty or thirty years. Not just in the US, but in Canada and Mexico. Polygamy was illegal in those countries as well, but not enforced so much.

I know this isn’t what you learn in Sunday School, Pluto, but check it out. Read Mormon Polygamy by Van Waggoner, who is a member in good standing and gives a balanced view of the issues.

I think that because all of the examples we have for polygamy are from the past, you are falling into the trap that modern polygamy would have to follow that model. Robert Heinlein described a polygamous marriage in “Moon is a Harsh Mistress” that was a partnership between people. The main character was in a marriage that consisted of many men and women. (roughly equal numbers) This form does have many advantages. A death of an adult doesn’t put undue hardship on the others in raising children. Older members don’t have the financial strain of retirement. (No dog food!) In this example new spouses were added on a semi-regular basis. Young people of child bearing years would have the resources of the entire family behind them in raising children. (It is typical in America today, that the people who are least equipted to raise children both finacially and maturity, are the ones who have them.)
And also the wandering eye, variation in sex problem is taken care of. Also, just being able to get away for awhile.

I’m not saying that this is perfect, just that in todays modern society polygamy would probably take different forms than in the past.

I am in agreement Revedge (and we possibly agree due to similar Heinleinian indoctrination ; ) ). While clearly if either only polygyny or only polyandry are premitted in a culture, it’s a sexist situation, probably with the woman on the short end of the stick, powerwise, in both types of polygamy.

However, I see no moral reason why consenting adults should not be permitted to join in a marriage of any number and in any ratio of the sexes that they prefer. In the polyamourous relationships I have seen and participated in, no one has “owned” anyone. It was an extended partnership of equals.

However, I do not speak with the voice of “modern feminism.” I speak only for myself. : )

One of my wife’s best friends joined a polygamous marriage in Utah. Although it is officially discouraged by the Mormon Church, there are still Morman sects out there that practice it. I met the family (sans the other “sister wife”) on a trip they took to our neck of the woods. The scene was a man, wife, and lots of kids, some of whom were not the woman’s children, in a motel room for an hour or so of catching up. Afterwards, I couldn’t help it, I had to say something to my wife: “If I had more than one wife, I’d go around with a stupid grin on my face”. She responded that for those Mormons, it wasn’t prurient, it was a very spiritual thing (to which I thought, “yeah, right”). I came back with “well, I guess I’m not very spiritual” (kind of ironic, since I am, we met in church, and we actually remained chaste until we got married).

I like Revedge’s idea (OK, Robert Heinlein’s). It’s sort of like spouse-swapping, although it’s not swapping, it’s a group marriage comprised of couples. The problem with a 1 man/many wives model is the problem I pointed out before: EITHER the man goes around prospecting for new wives, and announces to his existing wife/wives "look who I brought home…; OR the man & wife go prospecting for a new wife together, which probably means the first wife has to be somewhat bisexual.

The emotional problem which polygamy or group marriage is the floating question of who’s the favorite? And can you actually love more than one spouse? Is a polygamous/group marriage based more on convenience and lust than on love?

All of the poly-marriage forms have existed somewhere in nature and in human cultures. I don’t think there is anything “wrong” with it as long as it is part of the culture in which you live and is supported by that culture.

You just can’t decide that the five of you are now “married” that would be “wrong” since none of you have the economic, family, culture, history of the whys and hows of what makes this kind of marriage work.

We are raised role playing our parents’ marriage (s) and have to work might hard not to duplicate the worst of what we saw and are lucky if we can duplicalte what we thought was the best of what we saw and grew up in.

Immitations isn’t just the sincerest form of flattery, it is the way we learn a great deal of our humanness, culture, religion, and everything in between.

We simply don’t have the background to carry off any other kind of marriage than the one we grew up in and the one suported byour culture.

Uh, shopping? Bisexual? And why are you only talking about wives?

This IS how it happens (more or less) in Mormon polgyny (according to my understanding of it, at least) but not necessarily in a secular polygamous marriage. A man and his wife could go “prospecting,” as you put it, together, but the wife need not be bisexual. If her husband is interested in someone whom the wife also likes and respects, there’s potential for the relationship to go forward, but only in a relationship that’s pretty freaky would the wife not have any say in who joins her own marriage! And if the wife happens to be interested in another man whom her husband likes and respects . . .

And why would one go “shopping” for a spouse? Wouldn’t you think that a polygamous persons would find and fall in love with people the same way normal people do, by meeting, finding common interests, and spending time together? And wouldn’t they do many of these things along with their spouses?

And Jois,

If everyone always did things the same way that their parents did, how would culture ever evolve and change?

You make an excellent point that people interested in a polygamous relationship face some special challenges. However, the simple fact remains that some people do not fall in love with exactly one person of the opposite sex to the exclusion of all others. People get divorced, something that was less common in our parents’ day, and they have to work out all the messy issues–dealing with joint custody, step-relations, what happens to grandparent’s rights to visitation in a particularly bitter divorce, etc. People in non-traditional relationships do need to figure out non-traditional ways of working out their non-traditional problems.

But I don’t think it’s fair to say it’s wrong for people to enter into the sort of marriage that’s true to the feelings they have in their hearts, just because it isn’t (yet) common in our society.

  1. No room in the house.

  2. Not enough cars.

  3. Auto insurance premiums will skyrocket, especially if they are under 21.

  4. Extra health insurance is about $400 per person.

  5. Need to pay for college if they just finished high school.

  6. Too old to go to clubbing with them anymore.

  7. Can only have sex once a week anyway.

  8. Wife won’t let me.

Seriously, anyone who thinks polygamy is a good idea hasn’t been married before. Obviously, these guys are thinking double the sex, but even that would get old after a while. In exchange for that, you get double the headaches that come even with a great marriage. Living with 2 other people who are part of your life just ain’t easy. Double the decisions on where to eat, what movies to watch. You’re just not going to have time. That’s if you were going to be a regular American family.

“If everyone always did things the same way that their parents did, how would culture ever evolve and change?”

The culture evolves and changes not only because of the economic, weather-related, volcalo-erupting, grasshopper-eating, and so on, but because we usually don’t marry our sibs and are constantly exposed to variations within our own culture. Especially noticable in US where the Irish guy marries an Italian gal, WASP marries Mex-American. Haven’t you noticed this? My favorite was a Greek guy and his Mex-American wife! Sparks!

Also The oldest child and youngest child may well see great variation in the marriage and child rearing practices of the same couple.

Jois