Testy- I am going to quote my original post one more time. Note- I said “in the USA it HAD led to”. Note use of the past tense. Note i am talking about the brief period of LEGAL polygamy (when Utah was a territory, polygamy was effectively legal), and the “practice” not individual instances. Note again I clearly mentioned if the marriages are limited to folks over 18 I have no major problem. You have clearly several times misread my first line- and fixated on it, rather than the rest of the post. I will agree that i could have made the post somewhat longer, and explained my position more clearly. I am sorry if that led to confusion- but rather than attacks- request for clarification should have been made. The line about pervs marrying their wives baby sister was primarliy in reference to that psuedo-mormon cult in Utah+.
Kelly- I have some queries. You have called me ignorant some half dozen times so far- which indicates, i take it - that I know little about the practice of polygamy in America- and you know much more. I have seen very little solid info- and other posters have also said there is little out there. But apparently- you are possessed of more info than the rest of us. So, please help eradicate my (and others) ignorance- just how many polygamous families are there in the USA? How many wives- range and average? How many children? How many have a girl under 17? How many include an “incestuous” partner? How many are also commiting welfare fraud or similar? Just how widespread & numerous is the polygamous “cult” in Utah+? Exact numbers are hardly required, but solid round numbers are requested. Of course, you will have cites to back up these numbers. I am sure that after calling me ignorant so many times from basing my judgement on two well-known practicioners in the past- plus a couple TV segments- you will have MUCH better info- which you will share. Of COURSE- you will not be basing YOUR “non-ignorant” info on just a couple of polygamous situations you are familiar with. <does that last sound like i had a sarcastic tone?>
Well, actually I would say that a a girl under 16 cannot be married at all, and those under 18 cannot marry anyone over, say 29- but we have the basic premise. We seem to disagree on the definition of “incest”- you have no objection to a man marrying his wives sister- and i disagree.
So- it seems like you, testy & I all agree on one thing- polygamous marriages of older men to minor girls is wrong. This was my primaty objection. Now you say “problem solved”- but it isn’t- the laws allowing older men to marry minor girls are currently on the books- and they should be changed- and that MUST be changed BEFORE polygamy becomes legal. Once that giant hurdle it met- my objections to legalizing polygamy almost disapear (altho, certainly the massive re-write of marriage, community protery, tax & divorce laws would mean it would be a step that would need to be taken slowly). We still disagee on the “incest angle”- but that is minor. I assume you do find a Father “marrying” his daughter to be repugnant? Sisters, as long as they are both adults- well…let us say we disagree- mildly.
I have not in any way “characterized your support for polygamy” as “support for female sexual slavery”- but as that is my primary & strongest objection to legalized polygamy- I cannot understand why you attack my postion so strongly. You seem to be completely in agreement- but completely disagree. Are you saying, perhaps, that minors marrying is such a very tiny problem that it does not need to be solved first? Apparently then you are in possession of much better info on the practice of polygamy in the USA than the rest of us. As I have asked in the post above-PLEASE do share, hmm?
Snark, this doesn’t make your case. It simply says that if the Lord of Hosts will raise a seed or his people, he will command them, otherwise they shall “hearken” or hear/remember his threats or promises. If you think it clearly says something else, this begs the questions of JS hiding his polygamy, calling those who accused him of it liars in public, denouncing the practice in public while married to many women, and then forcing Mormons to adopt it to hide his philandering. This in turn forced Mormons to flee west, isolate themselves, and to deliberately avoid the gold rush which they proceeded (which they could have inherited, but BY didn’t want any trouble over polygamy) and then finally abandon polygamy from outside threat of government sanction, even when it is still enshrined in Mormon scripture as necessary for the highest kingdom, although it is also an “abomination” unto the Lord, who supposedly also lives in heaven.
Kelly,
Polyandry confuses which male is responsible for the child, hence the need for a type of neutral socialism, which would make such responsibility moot. Also, polygyny requires a moral code that prevents other men from feeling like they have been ripped off as they are disenfranchised by other men. This patriarchal moral code, which determines who marries who, has to include reasons for keeping polygynous women hidden from the extra plentiful men, who naturally desire them, such as veils or perhaps living in faraway outposts such as Utah.
And what are they to “hearken” to, or hear/remember? Look in the verses above verses 29 and 30 and you will notice that the Lord has just barely commanded the Nephites to avoid the practice of polygamy. If they are to be monogamous “otherwise,” what does the “otherwise” refer to, if not to polygamy?
Also, this passage has been interpreted by modern prophets to indicate that the Nephites were commanded to abstain from polygamy because of their wickedness in supposing that they could practice it with lustful intents (and without God’s approval), giving the excuse that David and Solomon had practiced it. Modern prophets have also interpreted verse 30 to mean that the Lord uses polygamy to rapidly raise seed within the Church at times. At other times, polygamy is forbidden.
Joseph Smith (to paraphrase) said that a man should have only one wife unless the Lord directed otherwise.
Here’s a couple of good references referring to this issue:
I think your analysis makes unnecessary assumptions.
As to polyandry, you’re assuming that one and only one man should be responsible for the family’s children. It makes sense to me that all of a woman’s consorts would be jointly responsible for providing for her and her children without regard to which one of them provided the genetic material. This doesn’t require “neutral socialism”, just shared responsibility within the family unit. There is also no clear reason why any male needs to be responsible for any given child; it is perfectly possible (although debatedly immoral) to hold only the woman responsible for her children (which in a female-dominant society might be reasonable anyway).
As to polygyny, you’re assuming that the male-female ratio is approximately 1:1. There have been many instances historically of societies in which that ratio did not hold, usually due to persistent war depleting the supply of men. In such environments, a social structure where a man can take multiple wives does not necessary lead to Carnegie Mellon Syndrome (a large supply of randy men with no dates for the dance).
In short, I tend to believe that your conclusions regarding polyandry and polygyny are based not on any solid anthropological evidence, but are simply speculation rooted in highly Eurocentric assumptions about human behavior and perhaps an unquestioned adherence to a moral code which is not rationally justified.
You can tend to believe anything you want, I was just informing you of what I meant since you said you didn’t understand, sounds like this is news to you. What Eurocentrism are you referring to? By the way, shared responsibility among males is a form of socialism, or you can invent a tribe to function in modern society if you want to avoid state socialism, but it is still socialism. I notice, however, that you limit it to one family, I would never to presume this. If you have polyamorousness, then men are married to many wives, and wives are married to many men, there is no marriage boundry to draw up a little certificate for. Sounds like your Eurocentrism got the better of you here. Legalizing everything in a little specified family unit is what you want to avoid if you want polyamory.
This isn’t exactly true, according to my further reflection on this issue. The main rule in whether polygamy should be practiced by the saints is, does the Lord sanction and command that it should be practiced at a particular time by a particular people or does He forbids it? If the former, it is righteous; if the latter, it is a whoredom.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden *
**
Actually, I think it was me that made the statement about “Female sexual slavery” and you seem to keep equating polygamy with this practice. The reason I assert that you have equated the two practices, (female sex slavery and polygamy) is the following statements:
If a 45yo perv can “buy” a 15yo wife from another “cultist” and “legally” marry her- he can have sex with her legally. Yes- it is still legal NOW for a man to marry ONE such girl- but the 'cult/culture" requires many such wives.
If someone is “buying” a human, that is slavery, hence my statement. Somehow or another we can’t seem to get off this thing with the LDS despite myself and others REPEATEDLY telling you that these people have nothing to do with what used to be the OP. What these people are doing is ALREADY illegal, further legislation won’t fix that.
Anyway, I’m going to retrieve Lee’s thread or maybe start another one referring to it.
