Is the principle of polygamy unethical?

[_Seven]

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?

[_truth dancer]

Is polygamy in and of itself unethical?

Well, technically, polygamy means one person married to more than one. (We are not talking about polygyny here).

This allows for a woman to have multiple husbands or a man to have multiple wives.

Personally if the laws and rights were equal, then polygamy would be more about individuals choosing to engage in an alternative lifestyle, NOT about giving rights and privileges to men NOT afforded to women.

So long as there is equality, adults who freely enter in the practice of their own free will without coercion or manipulation I do not have issues with the "ethicalness" of it. :-)

The reason I do not embrace the idea of one person having multiple partners at Godly has more to do with the story of the universe and the depth of the human, than it does with anything else.

Simultaneous multiple partnerships is a very primitive form of partnering found in animals. Humans have evolved to pair bond for a reason and the reason, in my opinion has to do with the depth of self awareness, communion, love, compassion, etc. etc. etc. that is found exclusively in pair bonding.

The idea that polygyny is common or the norm or whatever is completely and absolutly not the case in virtually any society nor in any culture in recorded history. It is just not the case at all. What is true throughout human history and throughout the whole planet is pair bonding in the human.

I think it is impossible to have what is possible in a healthy couple relationship when multiple people are involved. The intimacy, the connection, the love, the depth of the human being is not possible except in the pair bond relationship. This is what distinguishes humans from the rest of the animals world.

It is the idea of humans moving beyond sperm donation in the male ... the idea of yin/yang.... the idea of creating something really amazing as humans have come to develop intimacy.

To suggest polygamy is of God or some sort of ultimate form of partnership is to suggest the evolution of the human to acquire compassion, love, intimacy, emotions, bonding, parenting, connecting in meaningful ways is not as great as the more primitive animalistic form of partnering where men and women did not truly bond in any real sense of the word but superficially engaged in occasional sexual relationship to continue the species.

I don't see it.

~dancer~

[_marg]

Truth Dancer you make some very good points which I tend to agree with.

As to your question Seven: "Is the principle of polygamy more unethical than monogamy and why?"

I think polygamy in and of itself is unethical..in that I agree with Truth Dancer, it's not the best option for all in nature for humans. In institutionalized polygyny females are treated as baby machines. Young women are taken advantage of as they are not in positions of maturity and ability to protect themselves from those more powerful. There is no concern for their emotional well being. And frankly it can be difficult for the men as well.

That is the sort of polygyny started up in Mormonism.

The reason it could benefit Mormons at the time, is it could work to increase the population at a greater rate than without, because as women became scarce due to many marrying one man..there would be pressure on Mormon men to seek women outside the group. It would be at a cost (loss of females) from the outside group if the numbers were great enough.

So it was overall unethical..greater costs overall than benefits to all parties involved.

However there can be exceptional situations in which polygyny might be the lesser of evils given the circumstances. Such as in a society in which there is extreme poverty, women might benefit by marrying a man who could afford to take care of them and the children.

Perhaps after a war in which there might be a temporary shortage of men.
So there can be unique situations in which the overall the benefits could exceed the costs for all parties involved.

[_Mary]

Actually, no, I think I disagree with Dan on this one to some extent.

If we take polygamy as meaning a man marrying more than one woman, then I think it is unethical in most societies because

1. It can involve the exclusion of all but rich men.
2. Many women don't 'want' to be in a polygamous relationship unless the man is rich or powerful enough to make it a viable option.
3. Many men don't want to be in a polygamous relationship at least at a formal level where women and children would need to be supported.
4. It seems to go against the grain of the original Genesis format, of Adam and Eve as pair/companionship/help/support for each other.
5. There might be a greater likelihood that 'related' children would end up marrying each other, and so not offering a diverse or healthy enough gene pool
for offspring.


It could be ethical in some societies where

1. There was no support for widows, and polygamy was restricted to marrying a brothers wife (for instance) in the case of the death of the brother
2. There was a large disparity between the number of men and women in a society because of war or some other circumstance that affected the natural equality between the number of eligible partners in each sex.

(If the end result and goal for most of us, is to survive as a species then any system that allows that to occur most successfully would be a system that is ethical?)

[_grampa75]

Is polygamy in and of itself unethical?

Well, technically, polygamy means one person married to more than one. (We are not talking about polygyny here).

This allows for a woman to have multiple husbands or a man to have multiple wives.

Personally if the laws and rights were equal, then polygamy would be more about individuals choosing to engage in an alternative lifestyle, NOT about giving rights and privileges to men NOT afforded to women.

So long as there is equality, adults who freely enter in the practice of their own free will without coercion or manipulation I do not have issues with the "ethicalness" of it. :-)

The reason I do not embrace the idea of one person having multiple partners at Godly has more to do with the story of the universe and the depth of the human, than it does with anything else.

Simultaneous multiple partnerships is a very primitive form of partnering found in animals. Humans have evolved to pair bond for a reason and the reason, in my opinion has to do with the depth of self awareness, communion, love, compassion, etc. etc. etc. that is found exclusively in pair bonding.

The idea that polygyny is common or the norm or whatever is completely and absolutly not the case in virtually any society nor in any culture in recorded history. It is just not the case at all. What is true throughout human history and throughout the whole planet is pair bonding in the human.

I think it is impossible to have what is possible in a healthy couple relationship when multiple people are involved. The intimacy, the connection, the love, the depth of the human being is not possible except in the pair bond relationship. This is what distinguishes humans from the rest of the animals world.

It is the idea of humans moving beyond sperm donation in the male ... the idea of yin/yang.... the idea of creating something really amazing as humans have come to develop intimacy.

To suggest polygamy is of God or some sort of ultimate form of partnership is to suggest the evolution of the human to acquire compassion, love, intimacy, emotions, bonding, parenting, connecting in meaningful ways is not as great as the more primitive animalistic form of partnering where men and women did not truly bond in any real sense of the word but superficially engaged in occasional sexual relationship to continue the species.

I don't see it.

~dancer~

the forth chapter of Isaiah says; "And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man one man saying, we will wear our own apparal and make our own bread, but let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach.

2. In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel.

Perhaps we should view the act of polygamy in a different light to be in the same course as God perceives it. And try not to judge to act from gossip we really don't know anything about.
grampa75

[_marg]

the forth chapter of Isaiah says; "And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man one man saying, we will wear our own apparal and make our own bread, but let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach.

If God exists, he gave mankind brains to be used. So let's imagine something just for argument sake that the God of the Bible doesn't exist, and that the Bible is nothing more than man created stories, no divine connection at all. And whether events in the Bible are ethical needs to be judged independent of the assumption that the Bible is authoritive.

So Gramp75...put on your skeptic thinking cap, and give your reasons why you think polygamy is ethical without using any other authority.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Grampa... :-)

the forth chapter of Isaiah says; "And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man one man saying, we will wear our own apparal and make our own bread, but let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach.

2. In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel.

You do not sound as if you realize marriage during the days of Isaiah was a form of ownership... the wealthy and powerful men were able to own wives, concubines, slaves and many other forms of property. Women were good for one reason and one reason only and it had nothing to do with a loving emotionally connected relationship.

What does the archaic animalistic form of partnering have to do with evolved human partnering where a union is about love, compassion, care, emotional and physical unity, balance, romance, and healthy partnerships?

Perhaps we should view the act of polygamy in a different light to be in the same course as God perceives it.

If there is one thing I know, it is that a loving God would never in a billion eternities, create a system similar to the one designed by rich and powerful nomadic men where women were considered nothing but animals to use for their sexual pleasure.

And try not to judge to act from gossip we really don't know anything about.

With all due respect you seem not to know much about the history of marriage.

It is not about gossip... it is about how life has evolved.

:-)

I tire of people excusing and justifying something cruel, horrific, degrading because "God said"... Or people trying to convince themselves something cruel is really great. It just doesn't work for me. :-(

~dancer~

[_Trinity]

To suggest polygamy is of God or some sort of ultimate form of partnership is to suggest the evolution of the human to acquire compassion, love, intimacy, emotions, bonding, parenting, connecting in meaningful ways is not as great as the more primitive animalistic form of partnering where men and women did not truly bond in any real sense of the word but superficially engaged in occasional sexual relationship to continue the species.

I totally agree. If you look at the early history of polygamy in the church, it appeared that the practice was more about sacrifice than anything else. Sacrificing love, intimacy, trust, charity, kindness. And I don't know that marriage is the best place where sacrifice should be at the top of the priority list. I like to think that love Trump's sacrifice.

I also think that sacrifice without love will always bring resentment. And how do you get to love something you can't get really close to?

[_Seven]

However there can be exceptional situations in which polygyny might be the lesser of evils given the circumstances. Such as in a society in which there is extreme poverty, women might benefit by marrying a man who could afford to take care of them and the children.

Perhaps after a war in which there might be a temporary shortage of men.
So there can be unique situations in which the overall the benefits could exceed the costs for all parties involved.

I tend to disagree with this point. I don't believe there is any benefit in poverty to marry another wife. She then begins to add more mouths to the table, more cost to the family, less quality time with the children, etc.

If there are widows or women in poverty that need support, they should get that without stealing another woman's husband.
Service and charity is something the church or communities should give the women in these situations.

After a war, if there is a shortage of men, and single women desire to raise families of their own with no man to provide that, I would personally prefer any option besides breaking up anothers relationship. I could adopt, serve others, help children in need, etc. and be happy on my own. If I was already a woman with children needing financial support, I would prefer begging for money to using my body for it. That's not much different than a prostitute if women entered polygamy for money.

[_Seven]

To suggest polygamy is of God or some sort of ultimate form of partnership is to suggest the evolution of the human to acquire compassion, love, intimacy, emotions, bonding, parenting, connecting in meaningful ways is not as great as the more primitive animalistic form of partnering where men and women did not truly bond in any real sense of the word but superficially engaged in occasional sexual relationship to continue the species.

I totally agree. If you look at the early history of polygamy in the church, it appeared that the practice was more about sacrifice than anything else. Sacrificing love, intimacy, trust, charity, kindness. And I don't know that marriage is the best place where sacrifice should be at the top of the priority list. I like to think that love Trump's sacrifice.

I also think that sacrifice without love will always bring resentment. And how do you get to love something you can't get really close to?

What is more disturbing about the church's teachings regarding plural marriage was that it was an eternal law of heaven and not a temporary sacrifice. The other sacrifices made for God are only for this mortal life. So while the women were walking the halls "in a flood of tears" trying to endure the pain for an eternal reward, they were also sacrificing love and companionship with their spouse in the hereafter as well.