What exactly Is Wrong with Polygamy anyway?

[joseph1106]

I found that many church leaders do not have a good answer to this question. Here is my answer:

Plural marriage (polygamy) is a part of the Gospel doctrine and is a ceremony of the old times. God ordered Joseph Smith to revive it in the latter day so if anyone is dissatisfied with it please blame God (if you dare). However, due to the laws of the world and the problems arise in implementation, which has now ceased to be performed for the living (actually the ceremony is still performed for the ancestors). So it is revived but not execute in nowadays.

In ancient times, polygamy was practical rather than just satisfying men’s desires. In ancient times, the sanitation and medical environment were poor, the infant mortality rate was high, and children may die due to various diseases while growing up, together with problem of infertility amongst the couple, many family might not able to carry on the family line in monogamy.

Secondly, in the ancient times almost all work are done by man instead of machines. They need plenty of manpower for production of food and other stuff. Also the legal protection that people received in ancient times was often not as good as that in modern times. Without the protection of reign, people need to have a big family to protect their homes and belongs. However, humans reproduce at a much lower rate than other animals. Polygamy can make the family population grow rapidly so that they get sufficient manpower for work and safeguard their belongs.

Finally, the outstanding figures such as royal nobles, big entrepreneurs, professionals etc. always want to have descendants who can inherit their family business or title. They need to choice a son who is capable and worthy for the succession. Polygamy can ensure that they have A large number of people choose to inherit the family business, which can also strengthen the family's business and prestige. Therefore, polygamy has the necessity and practical (at least) in ancient times.

[Physics Guy]

Plural marriage (polygamy) is a part of the Gospel doctrine and is a ceremony of the old times. God ordered Joseph Smith to revive it in the latter day so if anyone is dissatisfied with it please blame God (if you dare).

If polygamy was bad, then it was bad enough to prove that God did not actually order it. So saying,"God ordered it, deal with it" isn't a good enough answer for anyone.

In ancient times, the sanitation and medical environment were poor, the infant mortality rate was high, and children may die due to various diseases while growing up, together with problem of infertility amongst the couple, many family might not able to carry on the family line in monogamy.

Polygamy doesn't do anything to help carry on a woman's family line. It only helps to ensure that some men will have descendants. What about the men that don't get to have any children, though, because the polygamous men took all the wives? They don't get any descendants. So how is polygamy better at carrying on family lines?

Secondly, in the ancient times almost all work was done by man instead of machines. ... People needed to have a big family to protect their homes and belongs. ... Polygamy can make the family population grow rapidly so that they get sufficient manpower for work and safeguard their belongs.

Polygamy cannot make population grow any more rapidly than monogamy can, because polygamy does not increase the number of women. It just matches the same number of women to a smaller number of men. Any group of women and all their children will be better protected, and get more work done, if they have an equal number of husbands, than if they have only one husband between them.

Finally, the outstanding figures such as royal nobles, big entrepreneurs, professionals etc. always want to have descendants who can inherit their family business or title.

This one actually works—just not in a good way. Polygamy can be better for a few rich and powerful men, in that it makes them more likely to have rich and powerful descendants. They gain this benefit at the expense of poorer and less powerful men and women. This may have been necessary, in the sense that nobody could stop the rich and powerful few from doing whatever they wanted. If polygamy was necessary because the rich and powerful needed to have lots of wives, though, then it must also have been necessary for the rich to eat lots of rich food while the poor people starved.

[doubtingthomas]

Polygamy cannot make population grow any more rapidly than monogamy can, because polygamy does not increase the number of women.

The strongest have the most successful offspring. In ancient times, low-skilled men did not reproduce.

Polygamy doesn't do anything to help carry on a woman's family line. It only helps to ensure that some men will have descendants. What about the men that don't get to have any children, though, because the polygamous men took all the wives? They don't get any descendants.

Polygamy is now probably at it's lowest point, but there are more single men than before. For ages 18 to 33, there are almost two single men for every single woman. According to Time, more men than women are now single. https://time.com/6104105/more-single-men-than-women/

Any group of women and all their children will be better protected, and get more work done, if they have an equal number of husbands, than if they have only one husband between them.

In the 19th century, a lot of women didn't have a husband.

[Markk]

LOL..your church cares…it has been outlawed for a century or so…they don’t even recognized the fundies of Jeff’s, do you?

I don't recognize the FLDS as genuine Latter-day Saints.

Should the current leadership do an about face and simply allow men to have multiple wives and women have multiple husbands?

That's up to God. But it would surprise me very much if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints returned to actively practicing polygamy. In fact I don't want it to. I just don't understand why it should be illegal.

Do your homework and at least understand LDS doctrine and history, i.e. the ever lasting covenant and the continuation of seeds.

What does anything I've said have to do with LDS doctrine or history? I just want to know what rationale people use for opposing polygamy.

Well…the ELC was the starting point or maybe better put….the excuse, for Joseph Smith screwing multiple girls and women…some even married. History answersyour question. People oppose polygamy, in a LDS construct, because it was nothing more than a excuse for Joseph Smith to get is wick dipped. These women and girls, were promised a place in the Celestial Kingdom, along with their family members, if the entered in to a celestial marriage with Joseph Smith. This is core LDS doctrine (sect 132) and clear history…start with the journal of William Clayton.

Folks today, if they do just a little research, understand that polygamy in a LDS construct is a lie…an excuse for a LDS man can, under a made up promise of eternal Godhood, invented by Joseph Smith, have sex with multiple women and again in Joseph Smith’s day…teenage girls. LDS polygamy is NOT rational, and that is why the very most of people oppose polygamy, especially is an LDS context which you are passively (very poorly) trying to justify.

I am a product of 2 and 3 generations of polygamy, 4 sides. E.G... It does noting but degrade women. My great great grand mother was left in a one room cabin with several children in the Provo area, to basically fend for herself, while her Husband…Edwin Whiting, lived in a large home with his preferred wive/s…, only to visit for a poke now and again, you are a tool of a lie…as most of us here once were….wake up.

So again do your homework…start with the journals of William Clayton.

[doubtingthomas]

So again do your homework…start with the journals of William Clayton.

God impregnated Mary when she was about 12, according to many New Testament scholars.

[huckelberry]

So again do your homework…start with the journals of William Clayton.

God impregnated Mary when she was about 12, according to many New Testament scholars.

Thomas, the scholarship you refer to is the observation that Jewish custom was at that time young women would be betrothed between age 12 and 18 . That is not married or pregnant. Mary was already betrothed so 12 is unlikely an age for her pregnancy. More likely between 15 and 19 but there is no real information. For all you know she could have been 24 though younger is more likely.

William Clayton?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

God impregnated Mary when she was about 12, according to many New Testament scholars.

Thomas, the scholarship you refer to is the observation that Jewish custom was at that time young women would be betrothed between age 12 and 18 . That is not married or pregnant. Mary was already betrothed so 12 is unlikely an age for her pregnancy. More likely between 15 and 19 but there is no real information. For all you know she could have been 24 though younger is more likely.

William Clayton?

What does Jewish custom have to do with a god impregnating a girl so he can incarnate?

- Doc

[huckelberry]

Thomas, the scholarship you refer to is the observation that Jewish custom was at that time young women would be betrothed between age 12 and 18 . That is not married or pregnant. Mary was already betrothed so 12 is unlikely an age for her pregnancy. More likely between 15 and 19 but there is no real information. For all you know she could have been 24 though younger is more likely.

William Clayton?

What does Jewish custom have to do with a god impregnating a girl so he can incarnate?

- Doc

Jesus mother's age at his birth is not known so some people use Jewish custom to make a guess as to her age.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

What does Jewish custom have to do with a god impregnating a girl so he can incarnate?

- Doc

Jesus mother's age at his birth is not known so some people use Jewish custom to make a guess as to her age.

I understand that, however it’s irrelevant because getting pregnant by a god isn’t customary. You seem to be uncomfortable with the notion that a god would impregnate a 12-year-old girl, but that’s beside the point. There’s exactly zero Jewish customs of a god impregnating a Jewish girl so he can incarnate himself. 12 is just as viable a number as 24 since a one-off act by a deity isn’t an ethnic custom. The Jewish god isn’t abiding by any customs, so it’s a non sequitur to even bring up a customary age. Her being 12 is just as reasonable as her being 14, both of which are bananas vis a vis a god impregnating a young virgin girl (because purity or whatever). Perhaps it’s less gross or pervy if a god impregnates a 16-year-old instead of a 12-year-old?

- Doc

[Manetho]

What does Jewish custom have to do with a god impregnating a girl so he can incarnate?

The gospels say she was engaged at the time Jesus was conceived.