The Trolley Problem--Nemo the Mormon is back

[Gadianton]

I don't think the problem is with polygamy per se, as a libertarian at heart, I don't see why polygyny or commune-style relations in general should be any less off the table than same-sex marriage. It's the way it crops up in practice. Any relationships are bad when there is compromise in agency or consent. It's less the "marriage" and more the 14 thing. If Jeffry Epstein performed a private marriage every time he did his thing, it wouldn't make him any better. I remember hearing stories about previous gen of BYU students who would run off to Vegas and get married for a weekend so sex wouldn't be a sin. It's a very Mormon way of thinking. Authoritarianism maximizes the chance younger girls will end up with older leaders, or that women in general will be pressured toward pragmatic relations with older leaders due to resource scarcity. And so I think in practice, polygamy as a doctrine is just a cover.

But, if there are cases where 2 of one wish to marry 3 of the other, and one of the three identifies as one of the two, and so which is really the two and which is really the three? -- but all are consenting adults of sound mind and reasonable financial resources, then be my guest. I don't want to know about it, but I don't forbit it.

[Moksha]

The ways of the Mormon God are mysterious. He desired Joseph to have joy at the expense of societal and religious norms.

Good point. Mormon God realized that the financial upkeep of wife 2-40? would be a big downer to Joseph's joy and would mean countless headaches from all that marital bickering, let alone needing to issue all those threats of destruction when the arguing got intense.

[malkie]

I don't think the problem is with polygamy per se, as a libertarian at heart, I don't see why polygyny or commune-style relations in general should be any less off the table than same-sex marriage. It's the way it crops up in practice. Any relationships are bad when there is compromise in agency or consent. It's less the "marriage" and more the 14 thing. If Jeffry Epstein performed a private marriage every time he did his thing, it wouldn't make him any better. I remember hearing stories about previous gen of BYU students who would run off to Vegas and get married for a weekend so sex wouldn't be a sin. It's a very Mormon way of thinking. Authoritarianism maximizes the chance younger girls will end up with older leaders, or that women in general will be pressured toward pragmatic relations with older leaders due to resource scarcity. And so I think in practice, polygamy as a doctrine is just a cover.

But, if there are cases where 2 of one wish to marry 3 of the other, and one of the three identifies as one of the two, and so which is really the two and which is really the three? -- but all are consenting adults of sound mind and reasonable financial resources, then be my guest. I don't want to know about it, but I don't forbit it.

Then you probably wouldn't like some of the societies that Ursula K Leguin imagined. For example:

Unchosen Love
Introduction
By Heokad'd Arhe of Inanan Farmhold of Tag Village on the Southwest Watershed of the Budran River on Okets on the Planet O.

Sex, for everybody, on every world, is a complicated business, but nobody seems to have complicated marriage quite as much as my people have. To us, of course, it seems simple, and so natural that it's foolish to describe it, like trying to describe how we walk, how we breathe. Well, you know, you stand on one leg and move the other one forward... you let the air come into your lungs and then you let it out... you marry a man and woman from the other moiety...

What is a moiety? a Gethenian asked me, and I realised that it's easier for me to imagine not knowing which sex I'll be tomorrow morning, like the Gethenian, than to imagine not knowing whether I was a Morning Person or an Evening Person. So complete, so universal a division of humanity — how can there be a society without it? How do you know who anyone is? How can you give worship without the one to ask and the other to answer, the one to pour and the other to drink? How can you couple indiscriminately without regard to incest? I have to admit that in the unswept, unenlightened basements of my hindbrain I agree with my great-uncle Gambat, who said, "Those people from off the world, they all try to stand on one leg. Two legs, two sexes, two moieties — it only makes sense!"

A moiety is half a population. We call our two halves the Morning and the Evening. If your mother's a Morning woman, you're a Morning person; and all Morning people are in certain respects your brother or sister. You have sex, marry, have children only with Evening people.

When I explained our concept of incest to a fellow student on Hain, she said, shocked, "But that means you can't have sex with half the population!" And I in turn said, shocked, "Do you want sex with half the population?"

[Gabriel]

Authoritarianism maximizes the chance younger girls will end up with older leaders...

This is especially true when it comes to "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same".

In Richard Turley's biography of Dallin Oaks, he writes of Elder Oaks' search for a new companion:

Nearly two years after June's death, he felt "strong pressure from my daughters, confirmed by my own feeling, that it was time to look for a companion." With that encouragement, he decided to become proactive, to exercise faith by doing.

"I went forward to find a wife," he wrote with determination in his journal on July 6, 2000, nearly two years after June's death. He picked up the phone and called three General Authorities to request that they "watch for eligible and qualified women I could consider."

source: In the Hands of the Lord, The Life of Dallin H. Oaks by Richard E. Turley Jr., Chapter 19: "A New Era In My Life" Kristen McMain Oaks, pg 238

It turns out that, of the three General Authorities contacted, it was Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve who was able to deliver the goods. AND they all lived happily ever after. One wonders, however, what gentle arts of persuasion these three General Authorities were permitted to use when contacting these "eligible and qualified women."

I am of the opinion that one should never discuss intimate family business with outsiders. Nelson and Oaks, however, have a more Fredo Corleone approach in such matters.

[MG 2.0]

I appreciate your confirmation - scholar to scholar - about Don.

As far as I know there were never any doubts on either side of the critic/faithful divide about his scholarship at any point in his faith journey

True. I am unaware of doubts raised here about Don’s scholarly acumen. In fact, when people elsewhere have voiced criticisms, critics who are inferior to Don in scholarship, I defended and will defend him because he knows the subject much, much better than most of them ever will.

And yet, that does not mean we are obliged to condone Joseph Smith’s moral choices. It simply is the case that people differ on points of moral reasoning. When it comes to the superiority of monogamy, I am stubborn. I will choose monogamy over other arrangements any time. That does not mean I have a beef with those who disagree.

Fair enough.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Authoritarianism maximizes the chance younger girls will end up with older leaders...

This is especially true when it comes to "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same".

In Richard Turley's biography of Dallin Oaks, he writes of Elder Oaks' search for a new companion:

Nearly two years after June's death, he felt "strong pressure from my daughters, confirmed by my own feeling, that it was time to look for a companion." With that encouragement, he decided to become proactive, to exercise faith by doing.

"I went forward to find a wife," he wrote with determination in his journal on July 6, 2000, nearly two years after June's death. He picked up the phone and called three General Authorities to request that they "watch for eligible and qualified women I could consider."

source: In the Hands of the Lord, The Life of Dallin H. Oaks by Richard E. Turley Jr., Chapter 19: "A New Era In My Life" Kristen McMain Oaks, pg 238

It turns out that, of the three General Authorities contacted, it was Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve who was able to deliver the goods. AND they all lived happily ever after. One wonders, however, what gentle arts of persuasion these three General Authorities were permitted to use when contacting these "eligible and qualified women."

I am of the opinion that one should never discuss intimate family business with outsiders. Nelson and Oaks, however, have a more Fredo Corleone approach in such matters.

It’s a very transactional and impersonal way of falling in love. “Hey lads, I need another one, here’s my criteria, draw up a list of candidates and I’ll interview three of them.” I guess that’s how Apostles “romance” their womenfolk. Can you imagine his second wife reading that and seeing how she was selected for marriage?

[sock puppet]

This is especially true when it comes to "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same".

In Richard Turley's biography of Dallin Oaks, he writes of Elder Oaks' search for a new companion:



source: In the Hands of the Lord, The Life of Dallin H. Oaks by Richard E. Turley Jr., Chapter 19: "A New Era In My Life" Kristen McMain Oaks, pg 238

It turns out that, of the three General Authorities contacted, it was Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve who was able to deliver the goods. AND they all lived happily ever after. One wonders, however, what gentle arts of persuasion these three General Authorities were permitted to use when contacting these "eligible and qualified women."

I am of the opinion that one should never discuss intimate family business with outsiders. Nelson and Oaks, however, have a more Fredo Corleone approach in such matters.

It’s a very transactional and impersonal way of falling in love. “Hey lads, I need another one, here’s my criteria, draw up a list of candidates and I’ll interview three of them.” I guess that’s how Apostles “romance” their womenfolk. Can you imagine his second wife reading that and seeing how she was selected for marriage?

Putting "suitable" criteria ahead of who catches his fancy and with whom he might be enamored. Cold and calculating.

[malkie]

It’s a very transactional and impersonal way of falling in love. “Hey lads, I need another one, here’s my criteria, draw up a list of candidates and I’ll interview three of them.” I guess that’s how Apostles “romance” their womenfolk. Can you imagine his second wife reading that and seeing how she was selected for marriage?

Putting "suitable" criteria ahead of who catches his fancy and with whom he might be enamored. Cold and calculating.

When I have to do some kind of cost/benefit analysis I often find it useful to create a spreadsheet - rows of candidates, columns of characteristics, and points in each cell. Then I use conditional formatting to highlight largest values green and lowest ones red.
No matter the row totals, I pay attention to rows with lots of green and little red.

Works well for me when I'm shortlisting people to interview.

Wait a minute - OMG, I don't do this when making decisions about who to spend my life with.

[Kishkumen]

I don't think the problem is with polygamy per se, as a libertarian at heart, I don't see why polygyny or commune-style relations in general should be any less off the table than same-sex marriage. It's the way it crops up in practice. Any relationships are bad when there is compromise in agency or consent. It's less the "marriage" and more the 14 thing. If Jeffry Epstein performed a private marriage every time he did his thing, it wouldn't make him any better. I remember hearing stories about previous gen of BYU students who would run off to Vegas and get married for a weekend so sex wouldn't be a sin. It's a very Mormon way of thinking. Authoritarianism maximizes the chance younger girls will end up with older leaders, or that women in general will be pressured toward pragmatic relations with older leaders due to resource scarcity. And so I think in practice, polygamy as a doctrine is just a cover.

But, if there are cases where 2 of one wish to marry 3 of the other, and one of the three identifies as one of the two, and so which is really the two and which is really the three? -- but all are consenting adults of sound mind and reasonable financial resources, then be my guest. I don't want to know about it, but I don't forbit it.

I don't know that it is just a cover. It is a new standard for demonstrating or proving who is the BMOC.

Mormon polygamy was part of its hierarchical and authoritarian apparatus. Wives are a means to an end, and they are viewed as inferior to their husbands according to doctrine. Male priesthood leaders are seeking to "build a kingdom" and the number of wives reflects on the progress toward a larger domain. More wives mean more eternal progeny. More progeny or "seed" means more progress.

On the whole, Mormon polygamy contributes to inequality between sexes and between leaders and others. Demographically it creates instability in that young single men are denied the opportunity to find a spouse when a certain, small cadre of men is collecting as many brides as it can, leaving the single young men with nothing to tie them down socially, and dissatisfied to the point that they cause trouble.

On the other hand, I don't think what a few consenting adults do should be anyone else's business. Frankly, what LDS people do is none of my business either, but I do have strong opinions about the practices of any group that wants to place demands on me.

[malkie]

I don't think the problem is with polygamy per se, as a libertarian at heart, I don't see why polygyny or commune-style relations in general should be any less off the table than same-sex marriage. It's the way it crops up in practice. Any relationships are bad when there is compromise in agency or consent. It's less the "marriage" and more the 14 thing. If Jeffry Epstein performed a private marriage every time he did his thing, it wouldn't make him any better. I remember hearing stories about previous gen of BYU students who would run off to Vegas and get married for a weekend so sex wouldn't be a sin. It's a very Mormon way of thinking. Authoritarianism maximizes the chance younger girls will end up with older leaders, or that women in general will be pressured toward pragmatic relations with older leaders due to resource scarcity. And so I think in practice, polygamy as a doctrine is just a cover.

But, if there are cases where 2 of one wish to marry 3 of the other, and one of the three identifies as one of the two, and so which is really the two and which is really the three? -- but all are consenting adults of sound mind and reasonable financial resources, then be my guest. I don't want to know about it, but I don't forbit it.

I don't know that it is just a cover. It is a new standard for demonstrating or proving who is the BMOC.

Mormon polygamy was part of its hierarchical and authoritarian apparatus. Wives are a means to an end, and they are viewed as inferior to their husbands according to doctrine. Male priesthood leaders are seeking to "build a kingdom" and the number of wives reflects on the progress toward a larger domain. More wives mean more eternal progeny. More progeny or "seed" means more progress.

On the whole, Mormon polygamy contributes to inequality between sexes and between leaders and others. Demographically it creates instability in that young single men are denied the opportunity to find a spouse when a certain, small cadre of men is collecting as many brides as it can, leaving the single young men with nothing to tie them down socially, and dissatisfied to the point that they cause trouble.

On the other hand, I don't think what a few consenting adults do should be anyone else's business. Frankly, what LDS people do is none of my business either, but I do have strong opinions about the practices of any group that wants to place demands on me.

It also leads to the practice of ejecting young men from the community:

"Lost boys" is a term used for young men who have been excommunicated or pressured to leave polygamous Mormon fundamentalist groups, such as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). Although sometimes officially accused of apostasy or disobedience, it is thought that they are mainly pressured to leave by older adult men to reduce competition for wives within such sects, usually when they are between the ages of 13 and 21.

Lost boys (Mormon fundamentalism)