LDS Freedom Forum

I tried dating 2 girls at once and they actually liked each other a little too much. They tried to kill me. So polygamy is a bad dill for men. All this happened before my lds days.

Fiannan wrote:

Muerte Rosa wrote:Ok let me rephrase....you say some CREEPY stuff. I say weird things and do some weird things. Im a weirdo and I take pride in that. But you say creepy things. I'm not alone on this either. Re-read some of your comments and try to see it from a normal person's perspective.

Oh really? My Atheist friends say that the Bible has some really creepy stuff. I suppose it is up to the person doing the interpretation. Give some examples though...not very constructive to just make an insult and not back it up. I will note that I have never insulted you in any discussion and I do not intend to.

I will note that modern society is based on the ideas of Freud, Jung, Skinner, Nietzsche, Mead, Kinsey, Watson, W. Reich, Bernays, and the application of their ideas through institutions such as the Taviskock Institute, CIA, and various huge foundations. Most people passively accept whatever the elite filter out to the society and yet if someone points out the principles of these entities they are accused of sounding conspiratorial or "creepy." You want creepy? Look at how you are manipulated every moment of the day, or what some people with a lot of power have planned for the human race in the next 50 - 100 years. You won't be so quick to make accusations after that.

As for polygamy, the original topic here, if you believe in evolution or even theistic-evolution then you must then accept that humans are animals and are governed by the same biological mechanisms as a moose, cat or Bonobo chimp. Thus we can say that what works to maintain these species can apply to our own. Of course in Darwin's "Descent of Man" he does say that morality is a component of human behavior but he fails to go beyond compassion to really set any foundation for what morality is. Religion on the other hand, which I am a very devout Mormon I will note, gives a moral compass as to what is right and wrong. The thing is, if we accept the evolutionary standpoint as or origins rather than a biological framework, then something like polygamy is totally consistent in amplifying both the man and woman's (women's) genetic code into subsequent generations. If we look at religion we find that there is an interesting intersection here in that religion often sees polygamy as positive and it is, ultimately, very pro-natal if practiced with an eye to forming families.

Face it, biology, especially as explained by evolutionary psychologiest, makes the case for the acceptance of polygamy. And the Bible and Koran make the case for polygamy's acceptance as well. Joseph Smith restored an ancient family framework, he did not invent it.

I have a few objections here.

I've read in depth a significant amount of literature on Gender and Sexuality, and no where have I found any scientific, or biological basis to support polygamy or polyandry. Contrary to any cultural conditions that existed, before, or now, humans are inherently monogamous, although they can have more than one partner throughout the course of their life time. "Serial monogamy" is more apt a description, and that is far from what is organized in polygamist, or polyandrous relationships.

Second, Anthropologists, Sociologists, and Psychologists agree that sexuality is fluid, for both men and women, not women alone. Nancy Chodorow, in my opinion, gives the best reasoning and logic for this, and much of her argument is steeped in structural considerations--i.e. that point in human conditioning where biology meets macro structural arrangements. In her argument, she says that because women are primary caregivers, daughters are likely to over-identify with their mothers (and vice versa), and create emotional bonds with their female offspring stronger than their male offspring. For these reasons, they are held closer to their mothers, breastfed longer, have fewer boundaries, and keep them 'closer' (in all senses of the word) for far longer than their male offspring. To Chodorow, this over-identification results in women having more emotional ties to females in general, making female child-rearing more conducive to sexual attraction towards other females (she goes so far as to say that women are naturally bi-sexual). If this strong sexual attraction is highly pronounced, then it signifies a deficiency on the account of the women to appropriately identify with members of the opposite sex later in life, called mis-identification. To her any female attraction to other females is owed to the vulnerabilities that are inherent in women taking up all primary care-giving roles, and men remaining secondary. It's a structural argument, not a biological one.

Second, there is ample evidence that male sexuality is just as fluid as female sexuality is, and Chodorow's writings on male sexuality is equally intriguing. Regardless--I just read over an unpublished peer article from an anthropologist in Afghanistan who did a study on Pashtun sexuality during the Afghan War, on a culture and society that shuns and criminalizes homosexuality, but is nonetheless a wide-spread practice to the point of cultural tradition and acceptance (i.e. Do a google search for "Dancing Boys" - Bahka Bazi). In the case of Afghanistan and the Middle East where women are segregated to the domestic realm with little movement or voice, homosexuality, beastiality, and the like, is rampant and the norm. Evidence of this kind of tinkering with sexuality is also existent in Japan, today, with a whole other face i.e. asexuality (take a look!). Sexuality is fluid and malleable, yes, and much of that which is responsible is owed to larger forces far from biological determinants. Humans adapt, but that doesn't negate the fact that monogamous, heterosexual relations are optimal and more inherent than cultural, economic, or religious circumstance.

When it comes to polygamy, the argument for me is simple. It mathematically cannot work to sustain any arguments put forth by JS or BY. Every population is roughly split 50-50 (unless you're in China) among men and women. Polygamy cannot work without leaving a huge surplus of unmarried men who do not have offspring (Do a google search for Utah 'Lost Boys"). The only way it could work, is if relationships are polyandrous, and that more than one more can be married to more than woman woman and VICE VERSA. Contemporary scholars have already established that humans are inherently monogamous--this runs deep in the literature. I would challenge anyone here to find where in the Bible polygamy is sanctioned by God--or commanded by God--and where it is not just merely indicated that it was being practiced at the time. Those are two very different things (I can actually think of 100+ reasons for why there would be Polygamy then--and it is not because it was divine nor optimal to societal growth or progression--and I certainly wouldn't take 'sexual advice' or knowledge from a primal, backwards, and inferior civilization).

A second problem also arises in the polygamy/polyandry debate. Over time, a polygamist community would have created an entire generation that is interrelated to one another. When this generation of offspring goes on to breed with one another, a problem of incest and inbreeding ensues. This entire generation now has similar genetic make-up, and you end up with genetic deformities and other ailments that are common among incestuous breeding (Again, look at the Middle East--and even Utah for evidence of this). If people argue that polygamy is used for the purposes of procreation, the human race does itself no favors by making its offspring sickly over time and susceptible to genetic ailments that are long-lasting and difficult, if not impossible to reverse. Current studies have even shown that on the topic of procreation--monogamous societies are able to produce more, and much more healthy offspring than polygamist ones. In other words, even to evolutionary biologists, polygamy is not conducive to any natural order re. procreation.

Anyhow, I've known for about a year and a bit that JS had multiple wives and partners (read it from Wikipedia), but something really changed once the Church admitted it. It's allllllllllllllll so much more clear now.

I was surprised about a year ago when I first learned that many LDS were starting to believe that JS actually never practiced polygamy and that BY made it up. At that time it seemed like there was ample evidence that I had read that pointed to JS being sealed to multiple women during the Nauvoo years. Where were these Latter-Day-Saints getting this idea? Since then I've learned why, and its because of multiple declarations JS made publicly that he did not practice it. I think people are getting too hung up on his public declarations and haven't considered the possibility that in Joseph's mind, what he was doing was not "polygamy" by the world's definition. He could honestly declare that he was not practicing it because in his mind what he was doing was different. There are other reasons I've read about that would explain why Joseph would out of necessity have to distance himself from accusations that he was practicing polygamy.

First, it was against the law in Illinois and/or Missouri (sorry, I'm not going to double check details at the moment.) Joseph risked breaking the law of the land if he were to admit his various polygamous relationships. And it might have been in his mind that because this was all done confidentially and not out in the open, what he was doing did not in fact constitute "polygamy." Adultery, maybe, but he knew that what he was doing was not adultery and was a commandment of God.

Second, there was at the time multiple groups springing up in the countryside, living and teaching "polygamy" that Joseph was aware of, and no doubt he wanted to distance himself and the saints from these groups. I'm sure he realized that Satan had inspired instances of counterfeit, and Celestial Plural Marriage was not part of this worldly phenomenon.

Third reason, and the Church's recent essay pointed this out, the doctrine of plural marriage was to be taught on a need to know basis, confidentially, and to those to whom it was revealed to Joseph that should be taught this revelation. It could not be taught openly that he now had multiple wives, for that would put his life and the Church's welfare at stake and in the hands of their enemies. He would have been casting pearls before swine, and the swine would have attacked back. Unfortunately that is what happened it appears. The swine did attack back because they did not believe in this new revelation.

Moving out to Utah can now be seen in a new light. It was absolutely necessary to go out west, away from the swine and from the laws of the land, to be able to openly practice this new doctrine. BY could now teach it openly because the former threats were gone.

Do I believe it is a true doctrine? Wholeheartedly! Would I like to be a polygamous wife in this life? Of course not! I realize how hard emotionally and otherwise it would have been to practice plural marriage. Many of the early plural wives expressed that the only way they could practice it was after receiving revelation from God that this was a good and true principle. Besides the fact that the practice helped bring forth spirits into homes where they could be taught the revealed gospel (I am a descendant of a second wife and am thankful for her sacrifice), it also assures the women who are sealed into those marriages of being able to enter the Celestial Kingdom.

I heard of someone asking their Temple President why women could only be sealed to one man but a man could be sealed to many women and he said it had to do with the resurrection. I thought about that answer and realized that, yes, this made sense. A woman only needs one man to take her through, onto Celestial glory, but a man can take multiple women on through to that place. For some reason God has made this the order of things. Someday we'll understand why.

Will we have to practice the plurality of wives in the future? It would make sense to me that we would. During the time before Christ comes, we know that many wars will occur and we might be in a situation where there are seven women to one man for example. Many of those women will be converted in the early part of the millennium. How are these women going to inherit Celestial glory if they are not sealed to someone before they are "twinkled" into their resurrected bodies? They can't be sealed to someone in the spirit world. So I do believe that a plurality of wives will have to come back to address this situation.

But women, take heart. I do believe in plural marriage in the eternities, but not in an eternity of one man sealed to hundreds of women and a woman sealed to only one man. (I don't know though, maybe she can choose her number). It not only doesn't make sense number-wise (no matter how much more righteous women are supposed to be) but it would not be fair or just. This is my personal view, but I believe that once you are resurrected, women and men may have multiple spouses. Each celestial person will have "lives," multiple families etc. I don't know how it will work, but that is what I've come to believe and a few parts of sec. 132 would support this theory. It also would explain why Joseph would seal himself to women who were already married. I think he saw the order of eternal marriage and saw married men and women sealed to multiple husbands and wives.

Perhaps I've cast some pearls before swine, but its better to have this idea in your head than the idea that the truth died with Joseph and Brigham Young did something wrong. I fully believe that all the prophets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are true prophets of God and that we will be safe spiritually and temporally as we follow President Monson.

...

I am late to this discussion, but studying polygamy in the scriptures, it is plainly obvious, like I was a child that polygamy was not ever never condoned or commanded by God:

I completely feel by the spirit's workings in my heart this position is correct and Joseph never practiced polygamy but was framed by the men who were practicing it, men that Joseph had or would excommunicate if discovered:
http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2008/11/ ... ygamy.html

I am shocked how we "saints" take things and use our heads instead of the plainness Nephi speaks of, which plainness comes of the Holy Spirit. Some saints say that it doesn't matter to know either way with polygamy, I disagree and say none of us will be saved in ignorance and this issue is KEY to so many aspects of the truth within the LDS church, that I fear fence sitters will fall onto the wrong side or worse just fall and not getup (trampled) when the fence is destroyed.

I esp. agree with the commenter's view on Jacob 2 (not his conclusion but view on the Jacob 2):

Richard StoutApril 28, 2011 at 11:42 AM
Jacob 2:30 is not a loophole for polygamy—far from it. While I don’t believe in the Book of Mormon, I do believe in grammar. Note that the verse begins with “For.” This is a conjunction that means “because.” It is “The word by which a reason is introduced of something before advanced” (Webster’s 1828 dictionary).

However, “Because” won’t fit the Mormon apologists’ interpretation—v. 30 doesn’t answer why the Nephites must obey God’s commandment to stop polygamy (expressed in the previous verse). Mormons must pretend “For” means “but” or “however” or “nevertheless” in order to completely switch horses in the middle of the stream, so to speak.

So what does v. 30 really mean? Let’s break it down:
“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me.” V. 25 has already said God “led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.” That’s the SEED referred to later in v. 30. A companion verse is 1 Nephi 7:12--“. . . [Lehi’s] sons should take daughters to wife, that they might RAISE UP SEED UNTO THE LORD in the land of promise.”

“. . . I will command my people.” This clause does not mean or say, “I will command my people to commit polygamy” as Mormon apologists try to influence people into believing. It refers back to the previous verse regarding the people keeping Gods commandments AGAINST polygamy. “Command” here simply means “govern” or “rule.” It’s similar to a general saying, “I will command the army.” Obviously, if the people disobey His COMMANDments, then God is not in command of the people, and their seed will not be righteous.

“. . . otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” Mormons would claim “things” here refers to God’s commandments, but these “things” were identified already in v. 23--“for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the THINGS which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.”

Putting it all together in a paraphrase, Jacob 30 actually means: “Because if I will raise up a righteous branch here in the Promised Land, I will govern my people; otherwise they shall listen to the things written about David and Solomon and continue committing whoredoms.”