What exactly Is Wrong with Polygamy anyway?

[Marcus]

Smith kept it hidden because he knew Emma was strongly opposed to it. Just because one's spouse is strongly opposed to something doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

Good gravy.

I'd say that when it comes to marrying other women, if your sole spouse is strongly opposed to it, then it makes it necessarily, objectively, and unapologetically wrong to marry other women while they are your spouse.

That's kind of how relationships, in particular marriage, work.

…But I could spearhead a faith organization that would give those truth claims that fair trial. I brought up these ideas I was having with my wife, and she strongly opposed them, so strongly that she got me to promise I wouldn't pursue them. In 2002 I was unemployed, and started thinking of my faith organization again, as an employment opportunity in addition to being a way to resolve my faith crisis. Again my wife told me she strongly opposed it. Finally I promised her (again) that I wouldn't pursue it, and I've never thought seriously about starting up that faith organization again. Is that just how relationships, particularly marriages work, Doctor Steuss? My wife strongly wants me ro stay active in the LDS Church and strongly wants me to avoid starting up organizations that might get me excommunicated, and therefore, being a good husband I should just do what she wants me to do?

Wow.

I’m with Dr. Steuss on this one.

I don't think we have any common moral or ethical ground to build upon in this conversation.

That you see the above as morally and ethically equivalent to marrying other women behind your wife's back has me a bit gobsmacked.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

What the “F” did I just read?

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

Good gravy.

I'd say that when it comes to marrying other women, if your sole spouse is strongly opposed to it, then it makes it necessarily, objectively, and unapologetically wrong to marry other women while they are your spouse.

That's kind of how relationships, in particular marriage, work.

Doctor Steuss, back in 1999 I had a faith crisis, and was really wondering if God actually wanted me in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It occurred to me that the things that church's critics were saying about that church might just possibly be true, and that that church might be as deceptive as they said it was. I had strong doubts that I, as one man, could get to the bottom of all the relevant issues; it was simply beyond me to do all the work involved in giving the LDS Church's truth claims a fair trial. But I could spearhead a faith organization that would give those truth claims that fair trial. I brought up these ideas I was having with my wife, and she strongly opposed them, so strongly that she got me to promise I wouldn't pursue them. In 2002 I was unemployed, and started thinking of my faith organization again, as an employment opportunity in addition to being a way to resolve my faith crisis. Again my wife told me she strongly opposed it. Finally I promised her (again) that I wouldn't pursue it, and I've never thought seriously about starting up that faith organization again. Is that just how relationships, particularly marriages work, Doctor Steuss? My wife strongly wants me ro stay active in the LDS Church and strongly wants me to avoid starting up organizations that might get me excommunicated, and therefore, being a good husband I should just do what she wants me to do?

Kevin, I'm having a hard time grasping why you see these two things as the same. If you were married in the temple, you and your wife exchanged mutual promises to be faithful to each other (i.e., having no other sexual partners). For you, as for Smith, to have sex with other women behind your wife's back violates one of the fundamental promises on which the marriage relationship was based. The same is true for most marriages. If you can't accept breaking one of the central promises you made to your wife when you two were married as "objectively wrong," then it's hard for me to imagine what you would accept as "objectively wrong."

Your response to Dr. Steuss is bizarre, because, unless you had some unusual wedding vows, you did not agree to do everything your wife tells you to do. Marriage is a continual negotiation, as people aren't static over time. Compromise is part of the process. If I asked your wife whether she gave up something she wanted to do because you objected, what would her answer be? What you describe is a perfectly normal negotiation that occurs over the course of a marriage. It is not a unilateral breaking of one of the central promises of the marriage relationship that is concealed from the other party.

Your wife didn't stop you from founding your faith organization. You could have done it, but chose otherwise. Had you done it, then your wife would have to decide whether your decision was significant enough that she no longer wanted to remain married to you. But that's a negotiation process that was in the open between the two of you -- not a hidden violation of promise and trust.

[Fence Sitter]

Kevin does not seem to use the same operating system that others do.

[malkie]

Kevin does not seem to use the same operating system that others do.

KevinSim?

[Dr. Shades]

The big argument for same sex marriage is marriage equality. Do women who want to marry but can't because no males are left who meet their (often very reasonable) standards, like my acquaintance Shirley Cook, have marriage equality?

You should've married Shirley Cook. Since you've proven that there's nothing inherently wrong with doing so, why didn't you?

[IHAQ]

Doctor Steuss, back in 1999 I had a faith crisis, and was really wondering if God actually wanted me in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It occurred to me that the things that church's critics were saying about that church might just possibly be true, and that that church might be as deceptive as they said it was. I had strong doubts that I, as one man, could get to the bottom of all the relevant issues; it was simply beyond me to do all the work involved in giving the LDS Church's truth claims a fair trial. But I could spearhead a faith organization that would give those truth claims that fair trial. I brought up these ideas I was having with my wife, and she strongly opposed them, so strongly that she got me to promise I wouldn't pursue them. In 2002 I was unemployed, and started thinking of my faith organization again, as an employment opportunity in addition to being a way to resolve my faith crisis. Again my wife told me she strongly opposed it. Finally I promised her (again) that I wouldn't pursue it, and I've never thought seriously about starting up that faith organization again. Is that just how relationships, particularly marriages work, Doctor Steuss? My wife strongly wants me ro stay active in the LDS Church and strongly wants me to avoid starting up organizations that might get me excommunicated, and therefore, being a good husband I should just do what she wants me to do?

To summarise - rather than get a job, you wanted a group of followers who supported you financially and from which you could have sex with a few of them of your choice. And were going to use “faith” as the vehicle to make those dreams come true. The only fly in the ointment was your existing wife who, for some unfathomable reason, didn’t like the idea…sounds familiar. Have you tried telling your wife that God has revealed it to you?

[dastardly stem]

If her goal is to have children, yes. Her faith is silly anyway. But she also could just go have a child and come back to the faith if she needs. many Mormon women had children out of wedlock. While it's a sin there is forgiveness, or so I thought. Marrying another married man would be an idiotic solution for her, I'd say.

Her goal is to have children and to do a good job raising them. I could be biased by my Latter-day Saint upbringing, but my impression is that people raised by two parents end up significantly better off than those raised by single parents. Are the results known for children raised by polygamous triples other than the FLDS and other Mormon splinter groups? My guess is that a child with both her/his parents actively involved in her/his life would on the whole grow up with more stability in her/his life than a child raised by a single parent, even if the former child's parents were practicing polygamy.

It's a stretch. I know of people raised in polygamy in Africa and they basically have never met their dads. Your thinking is exactly backwards on this, if you ask me, because you are trying to excuse the concept of polygamy. I don't think that's a good thing.

One of the reasons why this has happened is because the African societies have managed to see that children were a form of wealth and this way a family with more children was considered to be more powerful. Under these circumstances the polygamy in Africa was considered to be part of the way you could build an empire.

Only after the colonial era in Africa has appeared the polygamy has started to be perceived as a taboo, as this was one of the things imported along with the colonists that took over some regions of Africa.

https://polygamy.com/articles/89746509/ ... n%20empire.

As you can imagine the building of an empire is all about the man--the dad. it has little to do with the kids or the wives. It's about the man gaining greatness by using his wives and children. I really don't think you've thought this through.

As it is she may have been a better raiser of children than a mother and father home, or way better than a polygamous one. You would never know.

Furthermore, the way to achieve forgiveness from sins is to repent, which means turn away from the sin. Someone who sins, planning to repent later, isn't turning from her/his plan, so s/he isn't really repenting. The bottom line I think is that because women like Shirley Cook are devoted to Jesus Christ, they will choose not to get embroiled in sexual sin in the first place.

That's silly, many women who are devoted to Jesus Christ have sex outside of marriage. You're naïve. Every believer sins and knows they will sin again. I'm wanting out of this discussion because your reasoning is so bad. It hurts.

[Fence Sitter]

Ironically, Kevin is not only demonstrating what is wrong with polygamy, he is also demonstrating what is wrong with religion itself.

[Moksha]

Ironically, Kevin is not only demonstrating what is wrong with polygamy, he is also demonstrating what is wrong with religion itself.

Does this jive precisely with Joseph's philosophy that "if it feels good do it"?