The Polygamy Poll

[Rick Grimes]

True doctrine, no doubts about it.

Yes, Joseph practiced it. The Savior probably did too. The prophets and apostles of the restoration all practised it and the Lord blessed them. Those here that are seeking to placate their own insecurities by rewriting the narrative of the restoration being led by sex craved lecherous men, who committed whoredoms on a daily basis, are only protecting their own pride. How could the church possibly be true or retain any vestiges of authority when the leadership was committing these abominable and depraved acts? It cant and it wouldnt. Otherwise, the Catholic church would still be the true church as they believe they still have the true priesthood passed on by Peter to the current pontiff. The scriptures speak plainly about men losing their priesthood authority when they engage in any unrighteousness, until they repent and change their ways. The early church leaders never repented and stopped plural marriage until the end of the 19th century, and only in the USA. If plural marriage is wrong, we went apostate and lost the authority to act in Gods name when Joseph died or even before, because Joseph practised it as well. Either way, we would have no better claim to being the true church than the Catholics since we too would have our legitimacy depend on wicked and perverse men. We really cant have it both ways. Either plural marriage is evil and not from the Lord, and we are therefore fallen and do not have any legitimacy as a church, or plural marriage is of God, when commanded by Him, and we are not wrong in still practicing it in our temples. (Yes, we still practice it to this day)

[Silas]

One statement that really bothers me is the one that says many owe their existence to polygamy. How so exactly? If polygamy didn’t happen they wouldn’t have existed? That’s not true at all. I have one polygamist in my history and I descend from the 1st wife. So technically, I do not have have polygamy roots in my line but am related to people who do...

If polygamy didn’t happen in the early church, the church would be better off today...

I don’t know the stats but a lot of members come from polygamy lines - they would not exist if their dads didn’t marry etc with polygamous wives.

My guess is that if it weren’t for polygamy and the encouragement to have big families, this church would’ve died out early on.

Come on...your intelligent enough to know that these people would have still existed. Their mothers would have married a man and had their children. There were plenty of men. Sure their lineage would be slightly different and less convoluted and such.

Just like the lost boys situation, the 40+ year old men take the young brides and have children with them. The children wouldn’t have existed without the older guy taking an additional wife? All the while the better spouse and father to those children is dropped off somewhere with a couple hundred dollars and forbidden to return.

Don’t buy the traditional LDS narrative. We can appreciate their sacrifices but we don’t need to elevate their lifestyles or anything like that.

Once you understand that men have a flatter bell curve for success than women you understand why there is a place for polygamy and why your reasoning doesn’t hold.

Men are more likely than women to be millionaires. They are also more likely than women to be homeless drug addicts. Some of those women would have married other men. Many would not. Many women in the church today choose a life of celibacy and childlessness over marriage to a man who is not in the church or less faithful to it, in spite of their desires to be mothers.

So no, it is objectively true that many of those women would not have been mothers at all. Because that is what we see now in our culture where there are three single women to every single man who are active in the church today. More women than men respond to the gospel message.

The fact is that it will always be true that there are some men who aren’t internally constituted in a way that they can be a good husband to even one woman and there are some men who can be good husbands to more than one. Men and women are different.

[Zathura]

One statement that really bothers me is the one that says many owe their existence to polygamy. How so exactly? If polygamy didn’t happen they wouldn’t have existed? That’s not true at all. I have one polygamist in my history and I descend from the 1st wife. So technically, I do not have have polygamy roots in my line but am related to people who do...

If polygamy didn’t happen in the early church, the church would be better off today...

I don’t know the stats but a lot of members come from polygamy lines - they would not exist if their dads didn’t marry etc with polygamous wives.

My guess is that if it weren’t for polygamy and the encouragement to have big families, this church would’ve died out early on.

Nope. Women in monogamous relationships have and had more children than women in polygamist relationships. The more sister-wives, the less children you'd have. If anything, the population would have grown faster, more attention given to wives and children, and there will have been LESS widows to take care of. Treatment of women likely would have been better throughout the years. The negative effects of polygamy on women and LDS culture has branched out and lasts until this very day.

The fact that children came from those polygamist relationships means absolutely nothing. Shall we defend a rape, adultery, or incestuous relationship if a baby came from it?

If Brigham Chose to only have one wife, do you suppose the souls that were born through his many wives would have simply never existed? Obviously this isn't the case. They obviously would have had their opportunity to take up a body and life a life on earth somewhere.

[MMbelieve]

I don’t understand why we go to polygamy instead of going to lifting other men up to be husbands and fathers. There is no shortage of males in the world. I’m thinking the jump to and defending of polygamy is just another reflection of the natural man who desires power and authority. Men put other men down to gain their own status. Any man who is able should lift up other men to marry before he marries another wife. This to me seems more Christlike and gospel appropriate.

[Silas]

One statement that really bothers me is the one that says many owe their existence to polygamy. How so exactly? If polygamy didn’t happen they wouldn’t have existed? That’s not true at all. I have one polygamist in my history and I descend from the 1st wife. So technically, I do not have have polygamy roots in my line but am related to people who do...

If polygamy didn’t happen in the early church, the church would be better off today...

I don’t know the stats but a lot of members come from polygamy lines - they would not exist if their dads didn’t marry etc with polygamous wives.

My guess is that if it weren’t for polygamy and the encouragement to have big families, this church would’ve died out early on.

Nope. Women in monogamous relationships have and had more children than women in polygamist relationships. The more sister-wives, the less children you'd have. If anything, the population would have grown faster, more attention given to wives and children, and there will have been LESS widows to take care of. Treatment of women likely would have been better throughout the years. The negative effects of polygamy on women and LDS culture has branched out and lasts until this very day.

The fact that children came from those polygamist relationships means absolutely nothing. Shall we defend a rape, adultery, or incestuous relationship if a baby came from it?

If Brigham Chose to only have one wife, do you suppose the souls that were born through his many wives would have simply never existed? Obviously this isn't the case. They obviously would have had their opportunity to take up a body and life a life on earth somewhere.

To be fair to the polygamist church leaders their position wasn’t that birth rates would rise. It isn’t to raise up seed. It’s to raise up seed unto the Lord. So the goal was actually to increase the number of children born to righteous men who would lead them in the gospel path. Rather than have women go have children with men who did not accept the gospel.

[Silas]

I don’t understand why we go to polygamy instead of going to lifting other men up to be husbands and fathers. There is no shortage of males in the world. I’m thinking the jump to and defending of polygamy is just another reflection of the natural man who desires power and authority. Men put other men down to gain their own status. Any man who is able should lift up other men to marry before he marries another wife. This to me seems more Christlike and gospel appropriate.

Because people have agency. You really can’t do anything with a man who doesn’t want to change. I say that as a man who has made very seriously poor life decisions in the past. Like my life just had to get increasingly more miserable before I decided to fix it. Once I knew I could change and I wanted to there was no shortage of men who were excited to lift me up and set me right.

But you can’t lift up another man who doesn’t want it. Doesn’t work. Can’t work.

[MMbelieve]

I don’t understand why we go to polygamy instead of going to lifting other men up to be husbands and fathers. There is no shortage of males in the world. I’m thinking the jump to and defending of polygamy is just another reflection of the natural man who desires power and authority. Men put other men down to gain their own status. Any man who is able should lift up other men to marry before he marries another wife. This to me seems more Christlike and gospel appropriate.

Because people have agency. You really can’t do anything with a man who doesn’t want to change. I say that as a man who has made very seriously poor life decisions in the past. Like my life just had to get increasingly more miserable before I decided to fix it. Once I knew I could change and I wanted to there was no shortage of men who were excited to lift me up and set me right.

But you can’t lift up another man who doesn’t want it. Doesn’t work. Can’t work.

I agree with that, tends to be human nature.

[Mindfields]

To be fair to the polygamist church leaders their position wasn’t that birth rates would rise. It isn’t to raise up seed. It’s to raise up seed unto the Lord. So the goal was actually to increase the number of children born to righteous men who would lead them in the gospel path. Rather than have women go have children with men who did not accept the gospel.

Right, because the father will have all of this time to spend with each one of his 40 children.This does not in any way justify the "fruits" of polygamy.

[Silas]

To be fair to the polygamist church leaders their position wasn’t that birth rates would rise. It isn’t to raise up seed. It’s to raise up seed unto the Lord. So the goal was actually to increase the number of children born to righteous men who would lead them in the gospel path. Rather than have women go have children with men who did not accept the gospel.

Right, because the father will have all of this time to spend with each one of his 40 children.This does not in any way justify the "fruits" of polygamy.

You don’t have to like it. But their claim was not that it would increase birth rates broadly. It was that it would increase birth rates to men who lived the gospel.

[Rick Grimes]

To be fair to the polygamist church leaders their position wasn’t that birth rates would rise. It isn’t to raise up seed. It’s to raise up seed unto the Lord. So the goal was actually to increase the number of children born to righteous men who would lead them in the gospel path. Rather than have women go have children with men who did not accept the gospel.

Right, because the father will have all of this time to spend with each one of his 40 children.This does not in any way justify the "fruits" of polygamy.

The single biggest factor that affects people in deciding their religion when they are older, is the religion of their parents. (Same is true for which party they vote for) so yes, this would be a valid point in getting the number of members up by having righteous men father them, instead of having the women go hook up with the other available sectarian of the time.

[Sarah]

I posted a quote by Helen Mar Kimball recently and I remember in that quote she said that many of the wives of Heber C for example, were passing up younger or single men so that they could be a plural wife of a leader, because they truly believed that becoming a plural wife was a one-way ticket to the highest blessings, and that the higher in authority your husband was, the higher up you would be in the hierarchical order of heaven that they envisioned.

Brigham also allowed wives of simple members to become his wife because that was part of the Law he said he had only revealed to a few, that sealed women were free to move up if someone higher in authority was willing to rescue them. There was also a lot of hysteria at the time to hurry and be sealed up to the highest ranking person possible (including men wanting to be adoptive sons to these men) in time for the judgement that apparently was right around the corner. I think we can safely assume that many of these men who were passed up for those higher in authority, were not gentiles, but were simple members with no authority.

I think this indeed was a "privilege" that was intended to allow these men to learn from and to move forward into becoming more united with other men, and more compassionate to their wives, seeking to advance their wives with the same privileges. But it seems they all were content with the status quo, and the women were content to hope for equality in the next life - according to Helen anyway.

[Rick Grimes]

I posted a quote by Helen Mar Kimball recently and I remember in that quote she said that many of the wives of Heber C for example, were passing up younger or single men so that they could be a plural wife of a leader, because they truly believed that becoming a plural wife was a one-way ticket to the highest blessings, and that the higher in authority your husband was, the higher up you would be in the hierarchical order of heaven that they envisioned.

Brigham also allowed wives of simple members to become his wife because that was part of the Law he said he had only revealed to a few, that sealed women were free to move up if someone higher in authority was willing to rescue them. There was also a lot of hysteria at the time to hurry and be sealed up to the highest ranking person possible (including men wanting to be adoptive sons to these men) in time for the judgement that apparently was right around the corner. I think we can safely assume that many of these men who were passed up for those higher in authority, were not gentiles, but were simple members with no authority.

I think this indeed was a "privilege" that was intended to allow these men to learn from and to move forward into becoming more united with other men, and more compassionate to their wives, seeking to advance their wives with the same privileges. But it seems they all were content with the status quo, and the women were content to hope for equality in the next life - according to Helen anyway.

This isnt surprising at all. Women are often attracted to Alpha males. The fact that these women made these decisions is their own agency in action.

As far as these other "simple" husbands whose wives left them for somebody else.... I got a sinking suspicion that these marriages dissolved because of other reasons versus some leader coming and swooping these women away from their husband. No red blooded Male would ever allow his wife to go to anybody else, I dont care how high up in the church he is. These anecdotes from a 3rd party to these arrangements are weak sauce as an argument against the truthful excerize of plural marriage.

[Sarah]

I posted a quote by Helen Mar Kimball recently and I remember in that quote she said that many of the wives of Heber C for example, were passing up younger or single men so that they could be a plural wife of a leader, because they truly believed that becoming a plural wife was a one-way ticket to the highest blessings, and that the higher in authority your husband was, the higher up you would be in the hierarchical order of heaven that they envisioned.

Brigham also allowed wives of simple members to become his wife because that was part of the Law he said he had only revealed to a few, that sealed women were free to move up if someone higher in authority was willing to rescue them. There was also a lot of hysteria at the time to hurry and be sealed up to the highest ranking person possible (including men wanting to be adoptive sons to these men) in time for the judgement that apparently was right around the corner. I think we can safely assume that many of these men who were passed up for those higher in authority, were not gentiles, but were simple members with no authority.

I think this indeed was a "privilege" that was intended to allow these men to learn from and to move forward into becoming more united with other men, and more compassionate to their wives, seeking to advance their wives with the same privileges. But it seems they all were content with the status quo, and the women were content to hope for equality in the next life - according to Helen anyway.

This isnt surprising at all. Women are often attracted to Alpha males. The fact that these women made these decisions is their own agency in action.

As far as these other "simple" husbands whose wives left them for somebody else.... I got a sinking suspicion that these marriages dissolved because of other reasons versus some leader coming and swooping these women away from their husband. No red blooded Male would ever allow his wife to go to anybody else, I dont care how high up in the church he is. These anecdotes from a 3rd party to these arrangements are weak sauce as an argument against the truthful excerize of plural marriage.

I'm simply pointing out the flaws of the system of having plurality of wives - one being that they all flock to the most powerful, wealthy and good looking men. I believe that there is a true principle of plurality, but that the saints only received a small portion of the entire Law of the Priesthood talked about in sec. 132, and that the saints were tested with this small part of the Law to see how they would react to all these flaws. Could the saints figure out the solution to the problems?

So one story I was thinking of was a woman who was sealed to a man, the woman also having a sister sealed to Brigham Young. Her parents and others teased her that she was not as privileged as her sister who was married to BY, and so she thought she would do better to move over to him, which BY allowed her to do. She then had regrets and wanted to go back to the first husband but BY wouldn't allow it. I also heard of a case where a woman left her husband to be with her Stake President.

So yes, it is natural for women to be attracted to alpha males, just like it is natural for men to be attracted to beautiful women, that is their choice. So what I'm sure happened was that the most beautiful women would be sought out by males who were higher in authority as well. Beauty is like wealth, so what would be the Christ-like thing to do for these alpha males or beautiful females to do, assuming they could attract multiple partners? Christ said that if you love him, you feed his sheep and lambs. You lift up others around you. The right thing to do would be to give and share the wealth or partners that you have, and encourage those who want to be with you to be with others less fortunate, to help lift them up. That is what Christ told us to do. If we want to be with Him and experience His love, we seek to love the most lowly of people.

[Thinker]

One statement that really bothers me is the one that says many owe their existence to polygamy. How so exactly? If polygamy didn’t happen they wouldn’t have existed? That’s not true at all. I have one polygamist in my history and I descend from the 1st wife. So technically, I do not have have polygamy roots in my line but am related to people who do...

If polygamy didn’t happen in the early church, the church would be better off today...

I don’t know the stats but a lot of members come from polygamy lines - they would not exist if their dads didn’t marry etc with polygamous wives.

My guess is that if it weren’t for polygamy and the encouragement to have big families, this church would’ve died out early on.

Come on...your intelligent enough to know that these people would have still existed. Their mothers would have married a man and had their children. There were plenty of men. Sure their lineage would be slightly different and less convoluted and such.

Just like the lost boys situation, the 40+ year old men take the young brides and have children with them. The children wouldn’t have existed without the older guy taking an additional wife? All the while the better spouse and father to those children is dropped off somewhere with a couple hundred dollars and forbidden to return.

Don’t buy the traditional LDS narrative. We can appreciate their sacrifices but we don’t need to elevate their lifestyles or anything like that.

I’m not elevating their lifestyles.
I’m simply stating - or let me clarify - that many people (that is unique combination of a particular man’s sperm and a particular woman’s egg) would not exist as they are if their biological parents never married/had sex. I don’t know which part of that you didn’t understand.

Let me clarify my guess... the church would likely have still existed but not as strong in numbers as it has been without polygamy and large families.

Again, I don’t believe polygamy is right for me or for most - but the fact is that it is part of our church history and part of many of our genealogies. No denying that.

[Thinker]

One statement that really bothers me is the one that says many owe their existence to polygamy. How so exactly? If polygamy didn’t happen they wouldn’t have existed? That’s not true at all. I have one polygamist in my history and I descend from the 1st wife. So technically, I do not have have polygamy roots in my line but am related to people who do...

If polygamy didn’t happen in the early church, the church would be better off today...

I don’t know the stats but a lot of members come from polygamy lines - they would not exist if their dads didn’t marry etc with polygamous wives.

My guess is that if it weren’t for polygamy and the encouragement to have big families, this church would’ve died out early on.

Nope. Women in monogamous relationships have and had more children than women in polygamist relationships. The more sister-wives, the less children you'd have. If anything, the population would have grown faster, more attention given to wives and children, and there will have been LESS widows to take care of. Treatment of women likely would have been better throughout the years. The negative effects of polygamy on women and LDS culture has branched out and lasts until this very day.

The fact that children came from those polygamist relationships means absolutely nothing. Shall we defend a rape, adultery, or incestuous relationship if a baby came from it?

If Brigham Chose to only have one wife, do you suppose the souls that were born through his many wives would have simply never existed? Obviously this isn't the case. They obviously would have had their opportunity to take up a body and life a life on earth somewhere.

You guys are misinterpreting what I wrote to such an extent, it surprises me.

I am NOT defending polygamy. I’ve repeatedly explained that I don’t believe it is right. Yet the fact is that many in our church - including lds General Authority and prophets - have practiced polygamy. Many members owe their unique existence to polygamy. Monotonous couples likely contributed a lot to the church - but so have polygamy couples - especially in the earlier times of the church. Polygamy is part of our church history - like it or not.

[MMbelieve]

One statement that really bothers me is the one that says many owe their existence to polygamy. How so exactly? If polygamy didn’t happen they wouldn’t have existed? That’s not true at all. I have one polygamist in my history and I descend from the 1st wife. So technically, I do not have have polygamy roots in my line but am related to people who do...

If polygamy didn’t happen in the early church, the church would be better off today...

I don’t know the stats but a lot of members come from polygamy lines - they would not exist if their dads didn’t marry etc with polygamous wives.

My guess is that if it weren’t for polygamy and the encouragement to have big families, this church would’ve died out early on.

Come on...your intelligent enough to know that these people would have still existed. Their mothers would have married a man and had their children. There were plenty of men. Sure their lineage would be slightly different and less convoluted and such.

Just like the lost boys situation, the 40+ year old men take the young brides and have children with them. The children wouldn’t have existed without the older guy taking an additional wife? All the while the better spouse and father to those children is dropped off somewhere with a couple hundred dollars and forbidden to return.

Don’t buy the traditional LDS narrative. We can appreciate their sacrifices but we don’t need to elevate their lifestyles or anything like that.

I’m not elevating their lifestyles.
I’m simply stating - or let me clarify - that many people (that is unique combination of a particular man’s sperm and a particular woman’s egg) would not exist as they are if their biological parents never married/had sex. I don’t know which part of that you didn’t understand.

Let me clarify my guess... the church would likely have still existed but not as strong in numbers as it has been without polygamy and large families.

Again, I don’t believe polygamy is right for me or for most - but the fact is that it is part of our church history and part of many of our genealogies. No denying that.

Now that you have clarified your statement of how these people would not exist I get what your saying. You said nothing of the color of their hair or the genetic phenotypes just simply they would not exist.


Of course there is no denying that polygamy happened in the church history.

[Allison]

I am NOT defending polygamy. I’ve repeatedly explained that I don’t believe it is right. Yet the fact is that many in our church - including lds General Authority and prophets - have practiced polygamy. Many members owe their unique existence to polygamy. Monotonous couples likely contributed a lot to the church - but so have polygamy couples - especially in the earlier times of the church. Polygamy is part of our church history - like it or not.

Monotonous, lol. Don’t you just love autocorrect?

Also, it wouldn’t be polygamy couples so much as polygamous harems.

As a descendant of a rather prolific polygamist, I wish it had never entered the Church. Men who are all for it today have no idea what kind of message that sends to their wives and children.

[Zathura]

One statement that really bothers me is the one that says many owe their existence to polygamy. How so exactly? If polygamy didn’t happen they wouldn’t have existed? That’s not true at all. I have one polygamist in my history and I descend from the 1st wife. So technically, I do not have have polygamy roots in my line but am related to people who do...

If polygamy didn’t happen in the early church, the church would be better off today...

I don’t know the stats but a lot of members come from polygamy lines - they would not exist if their dads didn’t marry etc with polygamous wives.

My guess is that if it weren’t for polygamy and the encouragement to have big families, this church would’ve died out early on.

Nope. Women in monogamous relationships have and had more children than women in polygamist relationships. The more sister-wives, the less children you'd have. If anything, the population would have grown faster, more attention given to wives and children, and there will have been LESS widows to take care of. Treatment of women likely would have been better throughout the years. The negative effects of polygamy on women and LDS culture has branched out and lasts until this very day.

The fact that children came from those polygamist relationships means absolutely nothing. Shall we defend a rape, adultery, or incestuous relationship if a baby came from it?

If Brigham Chose to only have one wife, do you suppose the souls that were born through his many wives would have simply never existed? Obviously this isn't the case. They obviously would have had their opportunity to take up a body and life a life on earth somewhere.

You guys are misinterpreting what I wrote to such an extent, it surprises me.

I am NOT defending polygamy. I’ve repeatedly explained that I don’t believe it is right. Yet the fact is that many in our church - including lds General Authority and prophets - have practiced polygamy. Many members owe their unique existence to polygamy. Monotonous couples likely contributed a lot to the church - but so have polygamy couples - especially in the earlier times of the church. Polygamy is part of our church history - like it or not.

I didn't say you're defending polygamy. I went after the 2 points you made. 1, this idea that it actually matters that babies were born through polygamous marriages, and 2, that somehow the church would have died out without polygamy.

[Zathura]

To be fair to the polygamist church leaders their position wasn’t that birth rates would rise. It isn’t to raise up seed. It’s to raise up seed unto the Lord. So the goal was actually to increase the number of children born to righteous men who would lead them in the gospel path. Rather than have women go have children with men who did not accept the gospel.

You're correct, it's true that this was their stance.
In theory, this idea would make sense, but in practice did it make such a difference?

There are a couple of Brigham's sons that you could use as an example to prove that being the "seed" of a "righteous man" made no difference, and did not raise up righteous seed unto God.

Beyond that, the idea that these polygamous men were so much more righteous than your average Elder in elder's quorum seems incredibly flawed. Do you suppose if 50 children were born to Russell M Nelson and 20 wives and 50 children were born to 25 different LDS couples that somehow the number of righteous kids born to Russell M Nelson would somehow vastly out number the righteous kids born to those 25 couples? IMO, anyone that thinks so should realign their thought process.

Unfortunately this isn't something that we can really prove actually makes a difference.

Also, I don't think your last comment would align with their position

Rather than have women go have children with men who did not accept the gospel.

These women that marry polygamist men are looking for salvation, are looking for a righteous man. Their alternative to a polygamist man therefore, would most likely have been to marry a different righteous monogamous man, and not a man who doesn't accept the gospel.

[Thinker]

I am NOT defending polygamy. I’ve repeatedly explained that I don’t believe it is right. Yet the fact is that many in our church - including lds General Authority and prophets - have practiced polygamy. Many members owe their unique existence to polygamy. Monotonous couples likely contributed a lot to the church - but so have polygamy couples - especially in the earlier times of the church. Polygamy is part of our church history - like it or not.

Monotonous, lol. Don’t you just love autocorrect?

Also, it wouldn’t be polygamy couples so much as polygamous harems.

As a descendant of a rather prolific polygamist, I wish it had never entered the Church. Men who are all for it today have no idea what kind of message that sends to their wives and children.

It wasn’t autocorrect - maybe subconscious slip. Monotonous may be the underlying issue - but we’ll save that for another time line. Ha ha!

I used to visit teach an old lady who’s mother or grandmother was abandoned by her polygamist husband, along with a lot of children. To this day, they suffer the effects - so sad. I don’t know all the issues, but one recently committed suicide and most of the rest have struggled in various ways. There is a domino effect. I don’t discount free agency, but I also acknowledge it within limits of probability. Someone born in a metaphorical setting 50 feet down a deep hole cannot be compared with someone not in such a hole.

I’ve also wondered about the marriage and feelings of women married to men who openly wish they could practice polygamy.

[Thinker]

I don’t know the stats but a lot of members come from polygamy lines - they would not exist if their dads didn’t marry etc with polygamous wives.

My guess is that if it weren’t for polygamy and the encouragement to have big families, this church would’ve died out early on.

Nope. Women in monogamous relationships have and had more children than women in polygamist relationships. The more sister-wives, the less children you'd have. If anything, the population would have grown faster, more attention given to wives and children, and there will have been LESS widows to take care of. Treatment of women likely would have been better throughout the years. The negative effects of polygamy on women and LDS culture has branched out and lasts until this very day.

The fact that children came from those polygamist relationships means absolutely nothing. Shall we defend a rape, adultery, or incestuous relationship if a baby came from it?

If Brigham Chose to only have one wife, do you suppose the souls that were born through his many wives would have simply never existed? Obviously this isn't the case. They obviously would have had their opportunity to take up a body and life a life on earth somewhere.

You guys are misinterpreting what I wrote to such an extent, it surprises me.

I am NOT defending polygamy. I’ve repeatedly explained that I don’t believe it is right. Yet the fact is that many in our church - including lds General Authority and prophets - have practiced polygamy. Many members owe their unique existence to polygamy. Monotonous couples likely contributed a lot to the church - but so have polygamy couples - especially in the earlier times of the church. Polygamy is part of our church history - like it or not.

I didn't say you're defending polygamy. I went after the 2 points you made. 1, this idea that it actually matters that babies were born through polygamous marriages, and 2, that somehow the church would have died out without polygamy.

Well, those are issues of “what if” - not “what is.”

[Zathura]

Nope. Women in monogamous relationships have and had more children than women in polygamist relationships. The more sister-wives, the less children you'd have. If anything, the population would have grown faster, more attention given to wives and children, and there will have been LESS widows to take care of. Treatment of women likely would have been better throughout the years. The negative effects of polygamy on women and LDS culture has branched out and lasts until this very day.

The fact that children came from those polygamist relationships means absolutely nothing. Shall we defend a rape, adultery, or incestuous relationship if a baby came from it?

If Brigham Chose to only have one wife, do you suppose the souls that were born through his many wives would have simply never existed? Obviously this isn't the case. They obviously would have had their opportunity to take up a body and life a life on earth somewhere.

You guys are misinterpreting what I wrote to such an extent, it surprises me.

I am NOT defending polygamy. I’ve repeatedly explained that I don’t believe it is right. Yet the fact is that many in our church - including lds General Authority and prophets - have practiced polygamy. Many members owe their unique existence to polygamy. Monotonous couples likely contributed a lot to the church - but so have polygamy couples - especially in the earlier times of the church. Polygamy is part of our church history - like it or not.

I didn't say you're defending polygamy. I went after the 2 points you made. 1, this idea that it actually matters that babies were born through polygamous marriages, and 2, that somehow the church would have died out without polygamy.

Well, those are issues of “what if” - not “what is.”

Does that mean I can't address it?

[Silas]

I am NOT defending polygamy. I’ve repeatedly explained that I don’t believe it is right. Yet the fact is that many in our church - including lds General Authority and prophets - have practiced polygamy. Many members owe their unique existence to polygamy. Monotonous couples likely contributed a lot to the church - but so have polygamy couples - especially in the earlier times of the church. Polygamy is part of our church history - like it or not.

Monotonous, lol. Don’t you just love autocorrect?

Also, it wouldn’t be polygamy couples so much as polygamous harems.

As a descendant of a rather prolific polygamist, I wish it had never entered the Church. Men who are all for it today have no idea what kind of message that sends to their wives and children.

It wasn’t autocorrect - maybe subconscious slip. Monotonous may be the underlying issue - but we’ll save that for another time line. Ha ha!

I used to visit teach an old lady who’s mother or grandmother was abandoned by her polygamist husband, along with a lot of children. To this day, they suffer the effects - so sad. I don’t know all the issues, but one recently committed suicide and most of the rest have struggled in various ways. There is a domino effect. I don’t discount free agency, but I also acknowledge it within limits of probability. Someone born in a metaphorical setting 50 feet down a deep hole cannot be compared with someone not in such a hole.

I’ve also wondered about the marriage and feelings of women married to men who openly wish they could practice polygamy.

Joseph Smith is reported to have said (by Brigham Young if memory serves correctly) that he feared the principle of plural marriage would lead more men to hell than to the celestial kingdom.

I do believe there is a place for it but most people should not and cannot do it. At least not successfully.

That being said I know that there are women who wish their husbands would want plural marriage and the husband doesn’t. The narrative doesn’t always fit.

Many men in the church, for very rational reasons, would never want to practice plural marriage even if it was accepted and encouraged.

[Mindfields]

Joseph Smith is reported to have said (by Brigham Young if memory serves correctly) that he feared the principle of plural marriage would lead more men to hell than to the celestial kingdom.

I would be utterly amazed to find out that Joseph said even half of what people said he said.

[Thinker]

You guys are misinterpreting what I wrote to such an extent, it surprises me.

I am NOT defending polygamy. I’ve repeatedly explained that I don’t believe it is right. Yet the fact is that many in our church - including lds General Authority and prophets - have practiced polygamy. Many members owe their unique existence to polygamy. Monotonous couples likely contributed a lot to the church - but so have polygamy couples - especially in the earlier times of the church. Polygamy is part of our church history - like it or not.

I didn't say you're defending polygamy. I went after the 2 points you made. 1, this idea that it actually matters that babies were born through polygamous marriages, and 2, that somehow the church would have died out without polygamy.

Well, those are issues of “what if” - not “what is.”

Does that mean I can't address it?

Of course you can. But there are “bigger fish to fry.”