Is the principle of polygamy unethical?

[_gramps]

Patriarchal polygamy, I think, will always turn out to be "unethical" due to the imbalance of power. It really plays out to be more like bondage than marriage.

Polygamy, and for that matter, polyamory, on the other hand, in all its various manifestations, assuming all are consenting adults, may not be unethical, all other things being equal.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Gramps... :-)

Polygamy, and for that matter, polyamory, on the other hand, in all its various manifestations, assuming all are consenting adults, may not be unethical, all other things being equal.

I agree.... if informed,consenting ADULTS freely and willingly choose to form whatever sort of alternative relationship they find beneficial to their lives, fine. (So long as children are not harmed).

What is not ok is giving men rights not afforded to women, using girls as sexual objects, coercing or manipulating girls and women for men's pleasure, using God as an excuse to take advantage of women and girls, harming families and marriages so men can have their celestial fantasy, etc. etc. etc.

~dancer~

[_Inconceivable]

I think it would have added more credibility to Joseph Smith's argument if he had advocated it from the prison cell he should have spent the rest of his life in for practicing it. Of course, the "manifesto" would probably have been dated 1844.

If it were to be reinstituted today, here is my bare chest, give it your best shot destroying angel.

[_truth dancer]

If it were to be reinstituted today, here is my bare chest, give it your best shot destroying angel.

Now... YOU are a real man! :-)

I always thought this story of the angel with a drawn sword was odd.... Joseph Smith agrees to enter into a horrific practice by giving into the angel so he won't be hurt?

What?

Isn't there something honorable about a man who does the right thing regardless of threats? A man who cares so much for his wife that he won't let an angel intimidate him. :-)

A guy who stands up for his wife, his family, honor, decency, and integrity regardless of some angelic visitation is a GREAT guy!

:-)

~dancer~

[_Dan Vogel]

Seven,

I think it is important to note that the context of my statement was in response to Marg (I think?), who argued that any man living polygamy was guilty of rape since it was unethical. Something like that.

[_Seven]

Seven,

I think it is important to note that the context of my statement was in response to Marg (I think?), who argued that any man living polygamy was guilty of rape since it was unethical. Something like that.

Hi Dan,
I honestly didn't intend to take your statement out of context if I did, but that was something I had thought you believed. I will post the three exchanges that led me to believe you don't believe the principle of polygamy to be unethical if practiced correctly. (whatever that is)

Marg,


Quote:
Right I don't think J. Smith would be considered a pedophile based on medical diagnosis standards and as far as the law goes he probably would be convicted of bigamy.


Quite possibly.


Quote:
I believe though, we can make judgements on the ethics of his behavior. Even in his day his behavior was considered morally wrong. He violated the marriage contract with his wife. She did not accept polygamous marriages. His marriages were in no sense similar to legal contractual civil marriages in which typically the man is responsible for the woman's well being both physically and emotionally. The only purpose and benefit he appeared to get from the (polygamous) agreements was sex. He used his authoritative powers to manipulate and take advantage of others for self interest. The "Fanny affair" was an indication of his moral behavior even in his day. It was an affair. It was unacceptable by those close to him then.


While I think Joseph Smith sexually, emotionally, and spiritually abused some of his followers, I think it's also important not to assume he did not have a way of justifying his behavior, or that there wasn't some degree of sincere belief in his rationalizations. I think there can be a knee jerk reaction to Joseph Smith's practice that assumes lust as the sole motivation, similar to what Americans thought about Mormon polygamy in Utah. This fails to consider the long history of Christian polygamy and concubinage that extends back to the Reformation. Can one reasonably think that the founder of a radically extreme and fundamentalistic restoration movement would not broach the subject of plural marriage at some point? I don't think one can understand Joseph Smith's practice without considering the possibility that he may have had theological motivations as well dating back to the dictation of the Book of Mormon. While I think plural marriage was on Joseph Smith's mind since 1829, his ideas about how to go about it probably evolved. It is likely that when he was confronted by others about his behavior--such as in the Fanny affair--that he gave theological justifications, which resulted in Cowdery and others adding to the 1835 D&C an explicit statement that monogamy was the rule of the church.

In his 1842 letter to Nancy Rigdon, he did not deny the pleasure aspect of plural marriage, but he also outlined the means by which such behavior could be justified--revelation and commandment. He also fully acknowledged that apostate Christian America would not understand the principle. So, there are complex issues involved, and I think the lust argument is too reductionistic.

When I argued that Joseph Smith should be judged by the standards to his own time, it was in regard to the issue of pedophile and marriageable age. In other words, it was about something for which he and others would not have the same sensibilities as we do today. So I was advising not to commit the fallacy of presentism. In the case of plural marriage, he and others involved were fully aware and intentionally violating the law as well as cultural norms in order to live what they thought was God's law. In such case, it is difficult to label such behavior as unethical, unless one assumes--as you do--that Joseph Smith only wanted sex and didn't believe his own rationalizations.


Quote:
What he was like even in those days is comparable to men in positions of celebrity status today. If you take a male movie star adored by young females fans in their teens, I'm sure many who chose to use their status do bed many women, and many much younger than themselves. I'm not saying that all male celebrities would behave that way, but for some if the opportunity is there they will take advantage of it.


Why do you think it's OK to force Joseph Smith into this model? Would you not think it strange if someone tried to apply a theological model onto the rock star's behavior?


Quote:
Smith had the interest and the opportunity. He could manipulate people for his own ends and he did. It would be considered unethical then as well as now, for anyone in a committed legal relationship to break it.


First, you are assuming insincerity to prove insincerity. Second, you are assuming the law decides what is ethical. Monogamy might be a cultural norm, but in and of itself is not more ethical than polygamy. If Joseph Smith and others chose to live polygamy, they might be violating the law, but they were not necessarily less ethical than monogamists.[/quote]

Seven,


Quote:
They were not only violating the law of the land, but the law of marriage they entered into with God. Is this upright, honest, ethical behavior to break covenants of chastity to each other?


Of course, I'm not defending the ethics of a man who used deception and manipulated people on a regular basis. But I object to some of the reasoning being given. Polygamy in and of itself is not unethical, but some of the ways Joseph Smith went about it was. When you say he broke his covenant (of monogamy), you make it impossible for polygamy to be ethical under any circumstance. But I think Joseph Smith admitted in an indirect way that his behavior was unethical when D&C 132 mentions having permission of the first wife.


Quote:
It really doesn't matter how sincere Joseph was. He was hurting his wife in ways we can only imagine by his "sincere" behavior. That is why polygamy in and of itself is inhumane and unethical to women and the men who were victims of polyandry. It creates an inequality second to slavery and the government made the right decision in fighting polygamy.


You and I might think polygamy is "inhumane and unethical", but there are many cultures--both in the past and present--that accept polygamy as a legitimate form of marriage. Your stance here is wholly present minded. Of course, I share this bias against polygamy, but practicing it isn't automatically unethical.

Quote:
The vows of chastity between husband and wife are unique to monogamy and are moral because adultery is a sin second to murder. If you leave God's moral law of adultery out of this, polygamy causes pyschological pain and harm to the first wife. The physical harm is also relevant, but this is for another topic.
Polygamy feels wicked because it is harmful behavior to another, and the law, or culture have nothing to do with that feeling.


Again, your cultural baggage is preventing you from being objective. Something "feels" wrong because you have been conditioned by society to feel that way. It probably feels wrong to you to eat a dog, but in other cultures it doesn't. You are thinking in a way that is foreign to some cultures. You mention God's moral law of adultery as if monogamy was God's moral law. So, you are trying rest your argument on a question-begging definition of adultery.


Quote:
Ethical behavior should be determined by what Jesus taught: "Do unto others.." There is no point in promises and covenants of fidelity to a spouse if they can be broken so easily in the name of God with not a thought or concern for the harm it does to a woman physically & spiritually.


I sense you are personalizing the adultery aspects of this discussion.

Marg.


Quote:
If a murderer murders based on sincerity, let’’s say he/she believes God revealed to them they should kill someone..that doesn’’t make their behavior of killing an innocent individual ethical.


"Murder" in and of itself is unethical. Polygamy is not, unless you define polygamy as adultery, which is what some are here are doing.


Quote:
Their own justification for harming, abusing or taking advantage of others for personal selfish interests is irrelevant to whether their actions against others is ethical or not. You basically argued Smith actions were unethical yourself when you said ““While I think Joseph Smith sexually, emotionally, and spiritually abused some of his followers”” Abuse of others is unethical, wouldn’’t you say?


I'm not inclined to defend Joseph Smith as ethical in all situations. But I would hesitate to assert that Joseph Smith saw his behavior as we see it. Nevertheless, I think he knew he had a problem with living monogamy, felt guilt about it, and changed his concept of marriage to relieve some of that guilt.


Quote:
I don’’t think Smith’’s sexual interest was unethical. What I think is unethical is lying to his wife, breaking his contractual legal marriage agreement with her by sexual relations outside their marriage of which she wasn’’t in agreement. He had a history of sexual relations with women, starting with the Fanny affair in which I believe it was Cowdery who called it something along the lines of a ““dirty nasty affair.”” Given his history beginning with Fanny it appears his primary motivation was sex in many if not most of the known polygamous relationships. The part which is unethical is his use of authority to satisfy what evidence appears to indicate was his personal sexual appetite.


I agree with this statement, but would add that he also saw his behavior as unethical in this regard. I think this is evident when D&C 132 mentions getting the first wife's approval, which apparently he eventually did after the fact in a few cases.


Quote:
Now while one can argue polygamy is acceptable in other cultures, typically there are conditions present. One being the male provides for and takes care of the women, two there are often circumstances such as few men available due to catastrophes such as war, or perhaps a male dies and leaves a wife and a brother will marry and take care of her. Even concubinage was a contractual arrangement in which the man provided for the concubine as set out in the contract. Joseph however wasn’’t providing for these women in any way emotionally or financially, there was no shortage of men, no need for him to have sexual relations with the women……behind his wife’’s back.


I don't think the shortage of men argument holds for early Mormons or other cultures. It was and is acceptable in some cultures for well-to-do men to have multiple wives, not because there is concern about women, but because marriage and women are viewed differently.


Quote:
As far as your comment: ““Why do you think it's OK to force Joseph Smith into this model? Would you not think it strange if someone tried to apply a theological model onto the rock star's behavior?””


I find it strange that you don’’t see the similarities.
What we are discussing is behavior. J. Smith was idolized, people worshipped him. That same sort of phenomenon occurs with celebrities, occurs with charismatic individuals who have followers. Men in these sorts of positions typically have no difficulty if they are so inclined to bed women. And that is biologically programmed into men, to impregnate as many women as possible. I think it likely that in the majority of cases for Smith he had little difficulty bedding anyone he proposed to given his position and that he was idolized.

My only objection is that your analogy attempts to remove the religious aspects of Joseph Smith practice and assumes it was solely for sexual reasons, which I think distorts the picture. You should want to make analogies to Shamans and cult leaders. There are deep psychological motivations to having these coercive bonds between leader and followers, not just between Joseph Smith and his wives but also with all those who were bound to him by this secret. In a rush to judgment, we are perhaps neglecting to consider the social function of Joseph Smith's polygamy. It wasn't all about sex.

This thread isn't supposed to be about what you said, but how polygamy can be ethical and what that would look like if practiced correctly. Your statements in the pedophile thread on Joseph Smith are what prompted me to start it so I included it. :)
Sorry if I took them out of context, but again that was not my intention.

[_Dan Vogel]

Seven,

I think it is important to note that the context of my statement was in response to Marg (I think?), who argued that any man living polygamy was guilty of rape since it was unethical. Something like that.

Hi Dan,
I honestly didn't intend to take your statement out of context if I did, but that was something I had thought you believed. I will post the three exchanges that led me to believe you don't believe the principle of polygamy to be unethical if practiced correctly. (whatever that is)

Marg,


Quote:
Right I don't think J. Smith would be considered a pedophile based on medical diagnosis standards and as far as the law goes he probably would be convicted of bigamy.


Quite possibly.


Quote:
I believe though, we can make judgements on the ethics of his behavior. Even in his day his behavior was considered morally wrong. He violated the marriage contract with his wife. She did not accept polygamous marriages. His marriages were in no sense similar to legal contractual civil marriages in which typically the man is responsible for the woman's well being both physically and emotionally. The only purpose and benefit he appeared to get from the (polygamous) agreements was sex. He used his authoritative powers to manipulate and take advantage of others for self interest. The "Fanny affair" was an indication of his moral behavior even in his day. It was an affair. It was unacceptable by those close to him then.


While I think Joseph Smith sexually, emotionally, and spiritually abused some of his followers, I think it's also important not to assume he did not have a way of justifying his behavior, or that there wasn't some degree of sincere belief in his rationalizations. I think there can be a knee jerk reaction to Joseph Smith's practice that assumes lust as the sole motivation, similar to what Americans thought about Mormon polygamy in Utah. This fails to consider the long history of Christian polygamy and concubinage that extends back to the Reformation. Can one reasonably think that the founder of a radically extreme and fundamentalistic restoration movement would not broach the subject of plural marriage at some point? I don't think one can understand Joseph Smith's practice without considering the possibility that he may have had theological motivations as well dating back to the dictation of the Book of Mormon. While I think plural marriage was on Joseph Smith's mind since 1829, his ideas about how to go about it probably evolved. It is likely that when he was confronted by others about his behavior--such as in the Fanny affair--that he gave theological justifications, which resulted in Cowdery and others adding to the 1835 D&C an explicit statement that monogamy was the rule of the church.

In his 1842 letter to Nancy Rigdon, he did not deny the pleasure aspect of plural marriage, but he also outlined the means by which such behavior could be justified--revelation and commandment. He also fully acknowledged that apostate Christian America would not understand the principle. So, there are complex issues involved, and I think the lust argument is too reductionistic.

When I argued that Joseph Smith should be judged by the standards to his own time, it was in regard to the issue of pedophile and marriageable age. In other words, it was about something for which he and others would not have the same sensibilities as we do today. So I was advising not to commit the fallacy of presentism. In the case of plural marriage, he and others involved were fully aware and intentionally violating the law as well as cultural norms in order to live what they thought was God's law. In such case, it is difficult to label such behavior as unethical, unless one assumes--as you do--that Joseph Smith only wanted sex and didn't believe his own rationalizations.


Quote:
What he was like even in those days is comparable to men in positions of celebrity status today. If you take a male movie star adored by young females fans in their teens, I'm sure many who chose to use their status do bed many women, and many much younger than themselves. I'm not saying that all male celebrities would behave that way, but for some if the opportunity is there they will take advantage of it.


Why do you think it's OK to force Joseph Smith into this model? Would you not think it strange if someone tried to apply a theological model onto the rock star's behavior?


Quote:
Smith had the interest and the opportunity. He could manipulate people for his own ends and he did. It would be considered unethical then as well as now, for anyone in a committed legal relationship to break it.


First, you are assuming insincerity to prove insincerity. Second, you are assuming the law decides what is ethical. Monogamy might be a cultural norm, but in and of itself is not more ethical than polygamy. If Joseph Smith and others chose to live polygamy, they might be violating the law, but they were not necessarily less ethical than monogamists.[/quote]

Seven,


Quote:
They were not only violating the law of the land, but the law of marriage they entered into with God. Is this upright, honest, ethical behavior to break covenants of chastity to each other?


Of course, I'm not defending the ethics of a man who used deception and manipulated people on a regular basis. But I object to some of the reasoning being given. Polygamy in and of itself is not unethical, but some of the ways Joseph Smith went about it was. When you say he broke his covenant (of monogamy), you make it impossible for polygamy to be ethical under any circumstance. But I think Joseph Smith admitted in an indirect way that his behavior was unethical when D&C 132 mentions having permission of the first wife.


Quote:
It really doesn't matter how sincere Joseph was. He was hurting his wife in ways we can only imagine by his "sincere" behavior. That is why polygamy in and of itself is inhumane and unethical to women and the men who were victims of polyandry. It creates an inequality second to slavery and the government made the right decision in fighting polygamy.


You and I might think polygamy is "inhumane and unethical", but there are many cultures--both in the past and present--that accept polygamy as a legitimate form of marriage. Your stance here is wholly present minded. Of course, I share this bias against polygamy, but practicing it isn't automatically unethical.

Quote:
The vows of chastity between husband and wife are unique to monogamy and are moral because adultery is a sin second to murder. If you leave God's moral law of adultery out of this, polygamy causes pyschological pain and harm to the first wife. The physical harm is also relevant, but this is for another topic.
Polygamy feels wicked because it is harmful behavior to another, and the law, or culture have nothing to do with that feeling.


Again, your cultural baggage is preventing you from being objective. Something "feels" wrong because you have been conditioned by society to feel that way. It probably feels wrong to you to eat a dog, but in other cultures it doesn't. You are thinking in a way that is foreign to some cultures. You mention God's moral law of adultery as if monogamy was God's moral law. So, you are trying rest your argument on a question-begging definition of adultery.


Quote:
Ethical behavior should be determined by what Jesus taught: "Do unto others.." There is no point in promises and covenants of fidelity to a spouse if they can be broken so easily in the name of God with not a thought or concern for the harm it does to a woman physically & spiritually.


I sense you are personalizing the adultery aspects of this discussion.

Marg.


Quote:
If a murderer murders based on sincerity, let’’s say he/she believes God revealed to them they should kill someone..that doesn’’t make their behavior of killing an innocent individual ethical.


"Murder" in and of itself is unethical. Polygamy is not, unless you define polygamy as adultery, which is what some are here are doing.


Quote:
Their own justification for harming, abusing or taking advantage of others for personal selfish interests is irrelevant to whether their actions against others is ethical or not. You basically argued Smith actions were unethical yourself when you said ““While I think Joseph Smith sexually, emotionally, and spiritually abused some of his followers”” Abuse of others is unethical, wouldn’’t you say?


I'm not inclined to defend Joseph Smith as ethical in all situations. But I would hesitate to assert that Joseph Smith saw his behavior as we see it. Nevertheless, I think he knew he had a problem with living monogamy, felt guilt about it, and changed his concept of marriage to relieve some of that guilt.


Quote:
I don’’t think Smith’’s sexual interest was unethical. What I think is unethical is lying to his wife, breaking his contractual legal marriage agreement with her by sexual relations outside their marriage of which she wasn’’t in agreement. He had a history of sexual relations with women, starting with the Fanny affair in which I believe it was Cowdery who called it something along the lines of a ““dirty nasty affair.”” Given his history beginning with Fanny it appears his primary motivation was sex in many if not most of the known polygamous relationships. The part which is unethical is his use of authority to satisfy what evidence appears to indicate was his personal sexual appetite.


I agree with this statement, but would add that he also saw his behavior as unethical in this regard. I think this is evident when D&C 132 mentions getting the first wife's approval, which apparently he eventually did after the fact in a few cases.


Quote:
Now while one can argue polygamy is acceptable in other cultures, typically there are conditions present. One being the male provides for and takes care of the women, two there are often circumstances such as few men available due to catastrophes such as war, or perhaps a male dies and leaves a wife and a brother will marry and take care of her. Even concubinage was a contractual arrangement in which the man provided for the concubine as set out in the contract. Joseph however wasn’’t providing for these women in any way emotionally or financially, there was no shortage of men, no need for him to have sexual relations with the women……behind his wife’’s back.


I don't think the shortage of men argument holds for early Mormons or other cultures. It was and is acceptable in some cultures for well-to-do men to have multiple wives, not because there is concern about women, but because marriage and women are viewed differently.


Quote:
As far as your comment: ““Why do you think it's OK to force Joseph Smith into this model? Would you not think it strange if someone tried to apply a theological model onto the rock star's behavior?””


I find it strange that you don’’t see the similarities.
What we are discussing is behavior. J. Smith was idolized, people worshipped him. That same sort of phenomenon occurs with celebrities, occurs with charismatic individuals who have followers. Men in these sorts of positions typically have no difficulty if they are so inclined to bed women. And that is biologically programmed into men, to impregnate as many women as possible. I think it likely that in the majority of cases for Smith he had little difficulty bedding anyone he proposed to given his position and that he was idolized.

My only objection is that your analogy attempts to remove the religious aspects of Joseph Smith practice and assumes it was solely for sexual reasons, which I think distorts the picture. You should want to make analogies to Shamans and cult leaders. There are deep psychological motivations to having these coercive bonds between leader and followers, not just between Joseph Smith and his wives but also with all those who were bound to him by this secret. In a rush to judgment, we are perhaps neglecting to consider the social function of Joseph Smith's polygamy. It wasn't all about sex.

This thread isn't supposed to be about what you said, but how polygamy can be ethical and what that would look like if practiced correctly. Your statements in the pedophile thread on Joseph Smith are what prompted me to start it so I included it. :)
Sorry if I took them out of context, but again that was not my intention.

Thanks for supplying the context. I certainly didn't intend to imply you had intentionally misrepresented me. When I make such statements about polygamy, they should be understood from a cultural-anthropological perspective of methodological relativism, not from my personal bias, which would probably not be unlike yours.

[_smitty]

The founder of the Mormon church believed in it....

Joseph Fielding Smith, who was LDS church historian and later became the tenth president of the church, made this statement in a letter written to J. W. A. Bailey in 1935:

The exact date I cannot give you when this principle of plural marriage was first revealed to Joseph Smith, but I do know that there was a revelation given in July 1831, in the presence of Oliver Cowdery, W. W. Phelps and others in Missouri, in which the Lord made this principle known through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Whether the revelation as it appears in the Doctrine and Covenants as [sic] first given July 12, 1843, or earlier, I care not. It is a fact, nevertheless, that this principle was revealed at an earlier date (Letter dated September 5, 1935, typed copy).

In 1943 Joseph Fielding Smith told Fawn Brodie about this revelation, but he would not allow her to see it: "Joseph F. Smith, Jr., the present historian of the Utah Church, asserted to me in 1943 that a revelation foreshadowing polygamy had been written in 1831, but that it had never been published. In conformity with the church policy, however, he would not permit the manuscript, which he acknowledged to be in possession of the church library, to be examined"

[_grampa75]

Dan Vogel stated this:

Polygamy in and of itself is not unethical, but some of the ways Joseph Smith went about it was.

There are always exceptions and you can find women who enter a plural marriage with no religous coercion, and are happy in this arrangement. You can also find slaves that are happy, swingers, etc. Those aside, I would like to focus on the mainstream LDS for this topic.

If polygamy was practiced again in the church, with the former teachings that it is required for exaltation, is it possible to live it righteously and ethically?

If we examine Joseph Smith's marriages as an example, lets go with the possibility that it was commanded by God.
When people say it was HOW Joseph lived it that made it immoral and not the principle itself, I would like to see how a perfect polygamous marriage would look like for an LDS family. If Joseph had lived it the way God commanded, what should his behavior have looked like to make an example of what God had intended as Celestial marriage?

Is the principle of polygamy more unethical than monogamy and why?

You have asked a question that has even bothered me for some time; Is the practice of polygamy ethically?

By the laws, rules, and regulations, that govern the United States I am inclined to say unequivocally that it is. However, there will come a time when, aparently, there is a shortage of men 7 to 1, and men are asked to take these women to wife to provide for them and give them the opportunity to bear children.

During the time of the Millennium, when this shortage is supposed to be, I read into it, that because of the love that one woman has for another, it would be the women who would ask her husband to take her to wife. If you read the 4th chapter of Isaiah you will find that in the latter days, or during the millennium, that GOD looks upon plural marriage as something beautiful and comely.

None of us have the love toward one another, including myself, for that to take place in our day and age. But from what I have learned and studied about it, I would not question it one way or the other.

[_guy sajer]

In cases where all parties entering into the arrangement are fully informed, have free will, have reached their majority (are not minor children), and voluntarily consent, perhaps no

In cases where any of the above do not apply, yes. A system of polygamy that treats women as chattel or as means to serve the ends of men, yes.

The above disqualifies, IMHO, most religously based polygamous systems, including and especially that practiced by early Mormons.