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

[_UnicornMan]

I would like to respond to the opening post -- about how I would react...

1. I would probably embrace the idea. My current marriage has a lot of deficits (although we are relatively happy now). My wife is good at working outside the home but has little interest in household domestic things, and so it can fall on me a lot of the time.

I'd find someone who likes to stay at home to fill the gap, particulary if she's been to culinary school.

2. I would try to be sensitive to my wife. She is forty, so, rather than make her feel on the outs by marrying someone younger, I would go for two twenty year olds so the ages match up (not her sisters, as there is enough sibling rivalry).

3. I would buy a bigger house. I've always felt that would be too extravagent and have resisted, but with another wife, we will need more room. So, I finally have my excuse to buy new furniture, a newer car, and all the trappings of a successful lifestyle.

4. Attractiveness would be an issue. If the proposed wife was very attractive, I would consider marrying her and then having her work outside the home if she was not good with domestic issues. The triple income could be used to invest in housekeeping services.

I would look for a male housekeeping service, however, so as not to appear sexist. And I would keep my new lifestyle all to myself so as not to appear worldly.

[_Pollypinks]

I would embrace the idea of marrying a man in his 30's, now that I'm 58 and don't look it. I'd embrace the idea of marrying a polygamous man with millions and pay another man to do my house work and laundry. I'd embrace the idea that the other women could spawn all they want, since I'm old enough to not do that anymore, and haven't wanted to since I was 25 anyway. Hell, I wouldn't even care if he never slept with me, as long as I got my share of the money, and then I could take trips with friends whenever I wanted, and have my own home, sans the screaming brats.

[_marg]

I guess it was when you said 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.

Ok ..as I said in another post I don't perceive adultery as slavery, and as well adultery is not necessarily abusive to parties involved other than the one who is being cheated upon.

[_jon]

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.

Ok ..as I said in another post I don't perceive adultery as slavery, and as well adultery is not necessarily abusive to parties involved other than the one who is being cheated upon.

Marg, so do you really view Joseph Smith as akin to a rock star when it comes to your understanding of his polygamous relationships?

Do you think Helen Mar Kimball fits the description of 'quite willing to go to bed with him'?
Fanny Alger?

[_Pollypinks]

The only one on record who seems to me to be willing to bed with Joseph is Fanny, and she was but a child when they were discovered in the barn.

[_marg]

Marg, so do you really view Joseph Smith as akin to a rock star when it comes to your understanding of his polygamous relationships?

Do you think Helen Mar Kimball fits the description of 'quite willing to go to bed with him'?
Fanny Alger?

I've addressed that there are exceptions and she would fit an exception as would Fanny, any others that worked in the house, those he adopted and dependent on him, women whose men were away on missions, any young females pressured by family.

I don't consider those not indoctrinated from a young age and who freely chose..as not responsible. If they were not brainwashed to accept polygamy from a young age..then I don't accept religious beliefs as an excuse to eliminate their responsibility.

What Smith did was adultery, not polygamy. And yes for many of the women, they would view him similarly to how women might view a rock star today..powerful, charismatic, alpha male, sex appeal.

[_marg]

This is one of the best articles I've seen written explaining what is wrong with polygamy.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le2258685/

Lysiane Gagnon
Polygamy's degrading to women – end of story
From Monday's Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Dec. 05, 2011

" The heart of the matter is whether polygamy respects the principle of equality between men and women – and it clearly doesn’t. Polygamy must be banned not because it is an “unconventional” practice, but because it is inherently degrading to women."
>
"Even though serious abuse can happen in all forms of sexual unions, including monogamous marriages, polygamy is a very specific case – the only one that is per se rooted in the inequality of women."
>
"The definition was recently modified in many countries, including Canada, to include gay marriage, but the concept of marriage hasn’t changed. It still involves no more than two adults. This doesn’t mean that other forms of sexual unions should be banned. For instance, a man (or a woman) can have multiple sexual partners simultaneously – but only marriage or common-law relationships are sanctioned by the state and regulated by the law and involve the obligation of financial support."
>
"Polygamy is a “privilege” available to men only. The reason why polygamy historically prevailed over polyandry is that it conforms to the primitive animal model that allows the male to spread his sperm and have as many offspring as possible. The animal comparison is actually quite relevant, for polygamists’ wives are literally treated as cattle, with the richest man possessing the biggest herd. Women are reduced to the status of toys that can be tossed away and replaced at the whim of their husband. If this is not in itself degrading, I wonder what is."

[_Drifting]

This is one of the best articles I've seen written explaining what is wrong with polygamy.

"Polygamy is a “privilege” available to men only. The reason why polygamy historically prevailed over polyandry is that it conforms to the primitive animal model that allows the male to spread his sperm and have as many offspring as possible. The animal comparison is actually quite relevant, for polygamists’ wives are literally treated as cattle, with the richest man possessing the biggest herd. Women are reduced to the status of toys that can be tossed away and replaced at the whim of their husband. If this is not in itself degrading, I wonder what is."

Welcome to the marital pattern for the Celestial Kingdom...

[_subgenius]

This is one of the best articles I've seen written explaining what is wrong with polygamy.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le2258685/

Lysiane Gagnon
Polygamy's degrading to women – end of story
From Monday's Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Dec. 05, 2011

" The heart of the matter is whether polygamy respects the principle of equality between men and women – and it clearly doesn’t. Polygamy must be banned not because it is an “unconventional” practice, but because it is inherently degrading to women."
>
"Even though serious abuse can happen in all forms of sexual unions, including monogamous marriages, polygamy is a very specific case – the only one that is per se rooted in the inequality of women."
>
"The definition was recently modified in many countries, including Canada, to include gay marriage, but the concept of marriage hasn’t changed. It still involves no more than two adults. This doesn’t mean that other forms of sexual unions should be banned. For instance, a man (or a woman) can have multiple sexual partners simultaneously – but only marriage or common-law relationships are sanctioned by the state and regulated by the law and involve the obligation of financial support."
>
"Polygamy is a “privilege” available to men only. The reason why polygamy historically prevailed over polyandry is that it conforms to the primitive animal model that allows the male to spread his sperm and have as many offspring as possible. The animal comparison is actually quite relevant, for polygamists’ wives are literally treated as cattle, with the richest man possessing the biggest herd. Women are reduced to the status of toys that can be tossed away and replaced at the whim of their husband. If this is not in itself degrading, I wonder what is."

More Balderdash!
and from a Canadian columnist....ugh.
First let me say that i am not a promoter of polygamy...but i am a promoter of adults being allowed certain freedoms.
So many who speak out against polygamy with such unfounded nonsense as read in the above column and post, so often rely on the "between consenting adults" argument to justify other behaviors....yet the same can be argued here.

The argument that polygamy demeans women just does not hold water to any mildly educated individual, that argument is tantamount to saying we should outlaw whiskey because of Otis (from Mayberry).
The impact of polygamy on children is quite undecided as of yet, meaning that the critics have yet to find something they can manipulate into an argument...in fact anthropologist Philip Kilbride has shown that polygamy would decrease divorce rate and be better for children.
The only real criticism of polygamy is that there will be an excess of single men, those who DNA will fade into the abyss of not being selected by the desires and qualifications deemed appropriate by a woman.
Yes, women should be allowed the same freedom to marry multiple husbands, but they likely will not, most likely due to the biological imperative of testosterone.
What business does the government have in legislating "love"....is that not the popular argument?
Bottom line is that polygamy is to marriage like the free-market is to the economy (no wonder the Canadians are against it)....those against polygamy are likely either uninformed, hypocritical, or worse.

(personally, i consider a position of female conspiracy to be at the root of anti-polygamy...for the tyranny imposed upon men by lust and its resulting confounding of men's minds is far more beneficial to women as it gives them more power over men)

[_Buffalo]

I agree that polygamy is inherently anti-woman (it sure was in 19th century Utah), but disagree that it should be outlawed. Age should be 21 though, to help mitigate the brainwashing factor of the polygamist cults.