There is a Polyandry Thread on MAD

[_Yoda]

Hi Runtu... thanks for clarifying. :-) I'm with you, if folks want to engage in any sort of alternative relationship AS ADULTS WITHOUT COERCION, then fine (so long as children are not hurt). There are many forms of unusual relationships that for some, work and so be it.

As you mentioned, there was nothing holy or Godly about what went on in the early days of the church concerning men sleeping with multiple girls and women. Lying, deception, coercion, manipulation, involving young girls, destroying families, neglecting children, hurting women, etc. etc. etc. etc.... just cannot be justified or rationalized away.

:-)


~dancer~

What is amazing to me is that there are several female apologists on FAIR/MAD, such as Nightengale and Charity, who actually think that polygamy was a good system. It was a good way to raise kids, etc. They have a completely different perspective.

I have honestly tried to see where they're coming from and can't.

I do think that there are certain cases where, in the next life, a polygamous relationship might be able to work out, simply because we will be dealing with issues on an entirely different level. I still think that these relationships will be the exception and not the norm.

[_Runtu]

What is amazing to me is that there are several female apologists on FAIR/MAD, such as Nightengale and Charity, who actually think that polygamy was a good system. It was a good way to raise kids, etc. They have a completely different perspective.

I have honestly tried to see where they're coming from and can't.

I do think that there are certain cases where, in the next life, a polygamous relationship might be able to work out, simply because we will be dealing with issues on an entirely different level. I still think that these relationships will be the exception and not the norm.

Part of me thinks it's bizarre that anyone, regardless of gender, thinks that Mormon polygamy was a good system. What on earth was good about a practice that basically made women into sows? Maybe it's an unfair comparison, but it always reminds me of "The Handmaid's Tale."

[_MormonMendacity]

I guess I can't accept the spin by many defending D&C 132 that these were non-sexual relationships.

The revelation doesn't have to bring in adultery if there is no sex...or what am I missing here?

[_Runtu]

I guess I can't accept the spin by many defending D&C 132 that these were non-sexual relationships.

The revelation doesn't have to bring in adultery if there is no sex...or what am I missing here?

You're not missing anything. Very little of it makes sense if sex were not involved.

If these were nonsexual unions

-why hide them from Emma?
-why hide them from the public?
-why wait until the husbands had left on missions before approaching the wives?

I suppose it's possible they weren't sexual, but it's highly unlikely, especially given the fact that the other wives testified that they had sex with him.

[_truth dancer]

What is amazing to me is that there are several female apologists on FAIR/MAD, such as Nightengale and Charity, who actually think that polygamy was a good system. It was a good way to raise kids, etc. They have a completely different perspective.

I have explored the reasons why some women do not mind attaching themselves to men with multiple women and why some women do not want an intimate relationship with a man. It is quite fascinating to me. I think evolution has pretty much everything to do with it. Remembering that the harem system (or the philandering male), is a very primitive structure in animals... there are reasons why some women embrace this idea while others have moved toward the desire for a man who is attentive to her family, exclusive, and committed. Without making any judgments... from a scientific and evolutionary perspective, females lower on the mating scale would have to attach themselves to males who would not be faithful... they basically had no choice.

Children, males, and females do better in a monogamous home. There is no question about this. Our primitive ancestors who developed monogamy instinctively knew this.. today the research is consistent and conclusive!

Also, I have noticed that women who don't mind sharing their husbands (proponents of polygmay) are often those women who prefer the relationships of women to an intimate relationship with a man. The women I "know" who don't care if their husband sleeps around are often those who do not enjoy sex, who do not like men, who don't want to be close to a man. There are also those women who do not care for an exclusive relationship if the man is very powerful. Seems the money and position surpasses the desire for intimacy in some cases.

I have honestly tried to see where they're coming from and can't.

I think this is because you have evolved to cherish a man as an intimate partner, and your marriage as a unit in which deep intimacy can come forth, and you understand the importance and value of having a man in the lives of your children. Everyone doesn't embrace this idea... some women see men as a means of financial support, as a person with whom one must have sex in order to bring forth children, or a sperm donar.

I do think that there are certain cases where, in the next life, a polygamous relationship might be able to work out, simply because we will be dealing with issues on an entirely different level. I still think that these relationships will be the exception and not the norm.

Do you see cases where a woman may have more than one husband? How about the woman whose husband died and she remarried? Why do you think a man will be able to have multiple partners but not women? Or do you?

:-)

~dancer~

[_rcrocket]

I guess I can't accept the spin by many defending D&C 132 that these were non-sexual relationships.

The revelation doesn't have to bring in adultery if there is no sex...or what am I missing here?

The law presumes sex in the event of marriage, and that is usually good enough for me. However, I have not been able to dissect the meaning of marriage for eternity and not for time, which might have been the case, and indeed appears to be in many instances. But not all, as the testimony of many of the women indicate.

P

[_Runtu]

I guess I can't accept the spin by many defending D&C 132 that these were non-sexual relationships.

The revelation doesn't have to bring in adultery if there is no sex...or what am I missing here?

The law presumes sex in the event of marriage, and that is usually good enough for me. However, I have not been able to dissect the meaning of marriage for eternity and not for time, which might have been the case, and indeed appears to be in many instances. But not all, as the testimony of many of the women indicate.

P

I agree with you, Plutarch. It wasn't just about sex. It was complicated, but as far as I can tell, sex was involved, at least most of the time.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The law presumes sex in the event of marriage, and that is usually good enough for me. However, I have not been able to dissect the meaning of marriage for eternity and not for time, which might have been the case, and indeed appears to be in many instances. But not all, as the testimony of many of the women indicate.

I tend to agree. I think the default position ought to be that sexual relations were involved, but perhaps not in every specific case. I've seen no evidence to suggest that, when it came to sexual relations, Joseph treated polyandrous marriages differently than other plural marriages.

[_Yoda]

Do you see cases where a woman may have more than one husband? How about the woman whose husband died and she remarried? Why do you think a man will be able to have multiple partners but not women? Or do you?

:-)

Yes, TD, I do think that there will be cases in the hereafter where women have two husbands in the case where the husband dies and she remarries. It is not stated in any type of doctrine, but I think that much of the doctrine we are left with today is based on culture, which is still, frankly more patriarchal. Again, I don't think that this would be the norm. The ideal would be monogamy. But, I do think that in the Celestial Kingdom (if, that is, in fact, what it is called), we will be able to evolve to a situation where our capacity to love would allow for this situation in certain cases.

I think I have shared with this forum the story of my friend who died in a car accident, and her husband remarried. His new wife has basically raised my friend's daughter. She has, however, been very careful to preserve the memory of my friend, so that this girl could, at least, "know" her in some sense, even though her biological mother died when she was a baby. In my estimation, this woman has shown a very pure form of love. Somehow, I have to believe that this situation will be resolved in the hereafter. It is the one case I have seen where I honestly think a polygamous relationship could work.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Yes, TD, I do think that there will be cases in the hereafter where women have two husbands in the case where the husband dies and she remarries. It is not stated in any type of doctrine, but I think that much of the doctrine we are left with today is based on culture, which is still, frankly more patriarchal.

Current LDS policy would suggest that a woman can only have one husband in the hereafter, whereas a man can could have more than one wife. This principle allows for a living man (either widowed or civilly divorced) previously sealed to a first wife to be sealed for time and eternity to a second wife; in contrast, a living woman (either widowed or civilly divorced) can only be sealed to one husband. One troubling result of this rule is that a woman who has been sealed to a first husband, but later remarries a second husband (to whom she is not allowed to be sealed, unless the first sealing is cancelled), will, with any chidren born to that second union, go to the first husband in the hereafter.