God asks you to practice polygamy ????? what would you do?

[_Pollypinks]

The comments on some women benefiting from polygamy are horrendous. Women even now active in the church don't necessarily have a clue as to their abuse, taking positions they have little energy for, and pooping out children they really don't need to. Giving pause to polygamy, Smith's wives were frequently wed to him for time only, as in the case of Lucinda Harris, whose husband stood proxy for Joseph after he died so that his wife could be sealed to him for eternity. Now, why marry these women for time, if there was only a spiritual theme to the marriage? And why would these men stand proxy for the prof after his death, instead of marrying their wives for eternity themselves? I'd really like a historian's answer to this one.

[_marg]

Holy hell Marg, are you having a bad day?

No but I do feel very strongly about this polygamy and I can get very angry at any sort of arguments justifying it. I was really angry at Don Bradley's apologetic argument that Smith and Fanny thought they were married. It misses the boat at what Smith's polygamy was all about. And so what if Smith & Fanny thought they were married and all other polygamous men and women thought they were married, does that make it okay? Argh.

No I am not attempting to justify LDS polygamy by relating some women seemed happy with their lot in life. But have you read even one word of what they said?

I'm giving you a hard time because what I'm seeing in your words a softening or leaning towards apologetics for Smith's/LDS polygamy.

Yes I think it was an immoral and horribly hideous system. I never said it was not all that abusive.

But by saying that some women said they were happy and that the system became less abusive over time, you are downplaying the immorality and abuse..as well as not recognizing that those abused don't necessarily recognize they've been abused.

Yes I think the LDS Church should renounce it and I am not happy vestiges of it remain by way of D&C 132 still being in the canon as well as the current policy that allows for men to be sealed to more than one woman if their spouse had died or if they are divorced.

Yes I am suggesting that you are poorly read on the history of this topic as well as defenses of it by apologists and those who are critical of it. The does not mean I disagree with most of your conclusions. But my question was really more curiouse. I have watched your methods in the past. You often attempt to speak with authority on things that it become clear you know little about. You tend to form an opinion then use a style of hammering home you point with an onslaught of rhetoric.

But Jason shifting to me and my knowledge is a typical apologist tactic to divert attention away from the real issues.

As I said, when you say many women said they were happy in polygamy and when you said it (polygamy) became less abusive, you are making an argument which justifies it. Going after my knowledge to criticize is not relevant. I'm giving you a hard time, because I am trying to forcefully make a point which I'm hoping you'll recognize. The point is, there is no justification for the LDS polygamy practiced ..that's the point. Please don't argue that women said they were happy or that it became less abusive.

As for me personally I despise polygamy and already told you once that my research into it was the prime lynch pin of leading to my current lack of belief that the LDS Church is what it claimed.

What more do you want from me? I have no desire to defend LDS polygamy and I find it odd that with my position towards it on this board that you are arguing with me as if I do.

What I want from you is what I said above, I want you to not justify it in any way in your arguments. The LDS polygamy was a barbaric system and you can not rely on people who were within the system who claimed to be happy with it. You have to critically evaluate it using your moral standards as to how LDS polygamous men treated females and must have viewed them.

(I'm gone for the next 24 hours.)

[_Pollypinks]

Jason obviously has issues that lead me to believe his LDS indoctrination has never been in serious question. That abuse continues in the church is a subject I doubt he'll see, since he sees benefits for some women of polygamy. Even if there were an occasional dollar amount that made it helpful, one is still being abused in order to get it. Would you like to sleep with your 80 year old uncle while still a teen in order to secure financial stability? Maybe, but it's still abuse. The abuse continues, because, they will be practicing it in heaven, and those women in the church really need to get their little minds around this one, cuz it ain't going away.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason obviously has issues that lead me to believe his LDS indoctrination has never been in serious question.

And you too are very certainly wrong. Try getting familiar with the person before you psychoanalyze them based on one or two posts on a message board.

That abuse continues in the church is a subject I doubt he'll see, since he sees benefits for some women of polygamy.

Really? And where did I say I saw any benefits for some women in polygamy? All I said was if you read some of the women's journals they seemed happy. Perhaps they were deluded, perhaps they were subjects of Stockholm Syndrome, perhaps they were liars. That does not mean I do not think polygamy was abusive. It was and is.

By the way your post is even more ironic sense I have argued here that I think women in the LDS Church should receive the priesthood.

Even if there were an occasional dollar amount that made it helpful, one is still being abused in order to get it. Would you like to sleep with your 80 year old uncle while still a teen in order to secure financial stability? Maybe, but it's still abuse. The abuse continues, because, they will be practicing it in heaven, and those women in the church really need to get their little minds around this one, cuz it ain't going away

As I have argued in the past as well.

[_harmony]

Actually, unless each case is analyzed on an individual basis, we can't know that ALL cases of polygamy were abusive. Some women obviously found it very attractive, even the part that tied to eternal salvation. Some women LIKE being tied, however lamely, to a male leader, especially a male spiritual leader, especially a male spiritual leader who was both charming and good looking.

Good grief! There is no denying my very public abhorrance of the Abomination, but even I am able to see that for SOME women, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Maybe they were prettier so got more attention, or maybe they wanted the prestige, or maybe they just didn't care... they just wanted to sleep with the prophet. (I suspect Zina fit into these catagories). No matter how you slice it, some women, a small minority, LIKED it, pursued it, and then flaunted it.

Abusive to us, by the way, does not automatically equate to abusive to them. While many many of the women were desperately unhappy, desperately poor, desperately lonely and unloved, there were also many many women who were desperately unhappy, poor, lonely and unloved who weren't LDS and lived in just as abusive environments. It was not an easy time to be female, especially single female, especially female with bastard children. At least these men made an attempt, sorry though it was, to give their children their name.

[_Pollypinks]

Yes, I suppose some women would actually like being tied to a post if the priesthood told them it would benefit them. Choice is the operative word, and how much choice is involved when salvation is hung over your head like a crown of jewels? So, the choice to be actively happy with one's polygamous situation would be easy for some, I suppose. And lest we forget, it hasn't been all that long that women had a way to provide for themselves, and maybe for those in some polygamous relationships, ample provisions were made. I know my grandmother marched with the suffragettes.

[_harmony]

Yes, I suppose some women would actually like being tied to a post if the priesthood told them it would benefit them.

Now? or then? Because I don't think referring to men as "the priesthood" was something the women involved would have done. They, like many of their counterparts at the time, had an innocence that we don't have. We have information they didn't have, and they had a worldview that allowed for the supernatural much more than we have now.

Choice is the operative word, and how much choice is involved when salvation is hung over your head like a crown of jewels?

It's hard to view the word "choice" as they saw it, since they had few choices at all. And a few, at least, had the chutzpah to stand firm against Joseph's claims.

So, the choice to be actively happy with one's polygamous situation would be easy for some, I suppose. And lest we forget, it hasn't been all that long that women had a way to provide for themselves, and maybe for those in some polygamous relationships, ample provisions were made. I know my grandmother marched with the suffragettes.

Good for her! I wish my great-great-grandmothers had done that.

[_Pollypinks]

I think the bottom line that I have neglected in this entire post is that women during polygamous days had no way of earning a living. If you had no family, it was dire. And I've not kept that in mind, so, I imagine had I had no one to rely on, and a polygamous man with an income made me an offer, I probably would have accepted.

[_harmony]

I think the bottom line that I have neglected in this entire post is that women during polygamous days had no way of earning a living. If you had no family, it was dire. And I've not kept that in mind, so, I imagine had I had no one to rely on, and a polygamous man with an income made me an offer, I probably would have accepted.

And it came with the added bonus of... eternal salvation! (even though the guy had no more ability to make good on that promise than anyone else through the ages)

[_marg]

Actually, unless each case is analyzed on an individual basis, we can't know that ALL cases of polygamy were abusive. Some women obviously found it very attractive, even the part that tied to eternal salvation. Some women LIKE being tied, however lamely, to a male leader, especially a male spiritual leader, especially a male spiritual leader who was both charming and good looking.

Harmony I'm talking about a system institutionalized, not any one particular case. I even stated I didn't think in Smith's case many of the women were abused. They weren't physically tied to him, saddled down with his kids and treated like a slave. They didn't enter polygamy because of indoctination from a young age with little awareness of alternatives.

Sure for some women polygamy had advantages. For first wives they may have enjoyed help with physical household work...a replacement for hired paid help or slaves. But that doesn't mean the polygamy within that family and part of the institutionalized system promoted that that the man treat or view his wives as human being worthy of respect. Instead it promoted that they view women as animals to be bred, to even produce more females to supply older men in the community, to view them as slaves for physical work and sex.

Good grief! There is no denying my very public abhorrance of the Abomination, but even I am able to see that for SOME women, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Maybe they were prettier so got more attention, or maybe they wanted the prestige, or maybe they just didn't care... they just wanted to sleep with the prophet. (I suspect Zina fit into these catagories). No matter how you slice it, some women, a small minority, LIKED it, pursued it, and then flaunted it.

My post above regarding Smith discusses this. I pointed out I viewed Smith like a modern day rock star in which women likely were quite willing to bed with him..and didn't not look upon it as abuse, nor were they abused.

Abusive to us, by the way, does not automatically equate to abusive to them. While many many of the women were desperately unhappy, desperately poor, desperately lonely and unloved, there were also many many women who were desperately unhappy, poor, lonely and unloved who weren't LDS and lived in just as abusive environments. It was not an easy time to be female, especially single female, especially female with bastard children. At least these men made an attempt, sorry though it was, to give their children their name.

You are missing the point Harmony, I am making an argument against an institutionlized system started up by J.Smith and not renounced on moral grounds by the LDS church. The only reason Warren Jeffs was found guilty is because of the law. He didn't violate anything Smith promoted. And the only reason the LDS stopped polygamy is to abide by law, not on moral grounds. So thank goodness for laws to protect women.

I'm addressing the morality of it and how it encourages men to view and treat women. It's not just polygamy being considered, it is a particular type of polygamy..a complete disregard for women as human beings worthy of respect by men. It's one in which it's okay to go after already married women, okay to go after extremely young females of fellow LDS men. There is no boundary institutionalized which encourages that women be respected as human beings. And we now have modern day FLDS carrying on that system, in which men are breeding females to supply older men, trading them amongst each other, and kicking out the young extra men not needed in the community. The religion doesn't set a boundary as to what is morally appropriate. It doesn't state or encourage that only in times of poverty in order to reduce hardship on women, that men might practice polygamy. Instead for absolutely no benefit to women whatsoever it encourages men to take on as many women as possible..without even having to supply them with appropriate living conditions. It doesn't set any age limit for wives but encourages older men to keep taking on more women no matter how young, for no beneficial reason other than it being tied into a religious belief system in the afterlife.