Buffalo wrote:Polygamous wives tend to have fewer children than monogamous wives, though.
That would be the case if you are comparing monogamy to polygamy without any restriction on number of males available for females to mate with in each comparable group. It would seem reasonable that the greater the number of wives..the less likely any one wife would get pregnant..as the man is spreading himself thin so to speak.
But if there wasn't an option of monogamy, that is there truly are significant fewer males to females..then of course pregnancies are bound to increase by women (mating polygamously) who otherwise would have no mate if only monogamy was an option.
Buffalo wrote:Polygamous wives tend to have fewer children than monogamous wives, though.
That would be the case if you are comparing monogamy to polygamy without any restriction on number of males available for females to mate with in each comparable group. It would seem reasonable that the greater the number of wives..the less likely any one wife would get pregnant..as the man is spreading himself thin so to speak.
But if there wasn't an option of monogamy, that is there truly are significant fewer males to females..then of course pregnancies are bound to increase by women (mating polygamously) who otherwise would have no mate if only monogamy was an option.
I suppose you're right. Still, it seems unwise to try to artificially inflate childbirth under those circumstances.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:.... I suppose you're right. Still, it seems unwise to try to artificially inflate childbirth under those circumstances.
How do you propose that it is an "artificial" inflation, or for that matter an inflation at all? And furthermore, by what "wisdom"? It would seem quite obvious that polygamy, as practiced throughout other communities, is a cultural practice stemming from various influences.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Buffalo wrote:.... I suppose you're right. Still, it seems unwise to try to artificially inflate childbirth under those circumstances.
How do you propose that it is an "artificial" inflation, or for that matter an inflation at all? And furthermore, by what "wisdom"? It would seem quite obvious that polygamy, as practiced throughout other communities, is a cultural practice stemming from various influences.
I would submit that it is an artificial relationship for most people. Some might gravitate toward it naturally, but I doubt most who have practiced it (especially the women) would have.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Jason wrote:However after the LDS Church publicly practiced it, while I think it was still an unhealthy and could end up in an emotionally empty relationship for many women I think it became less abusive.
So this I do wish you to respond to. Why do you think for many women the LDS polygamy "became less abusive"?
It's a documented historical fact that polygamy never became less abusive. It became very well hidden, but the physical, emotional, and spiritual toll were paramount to any well intentioned female.
Pollypinks wrote:It's a documented historical fact that polygamy never became less abusive. It became very well hidden, but the physical, emotional, and spiritual toll were paramount to any well intentioned female.
I don't think Jason has come to terms with just how completely devoid of respect for women..LDS polygamy was and is because it still hasn't been renounced on moral grounds.
If it's just polygamy because one chooses that sexual lifestyle then that's one thing, but to throw one's salvation into the mix is the worst form of abuse I can think of. Maybe some here would like to share their spouses with another, but I would guess most wouldn't. So to be treated like cattle, given freely by my husband to somebody who claims he can get me into heaven, is just too abusive for me to imagine.
Pollypinks wrote:If it's just polygamy because one chooses that sexual lifestyle then that's one thing, but to throw one's salvation into the mix is the worst form of abuse I can think of. Maybe some here would like to share their spouses with another, but I would guess most wouldn't. So to be treated like cattle, given freely by my husband to somebody who claims he can get me into heaven, is just too abusive for me to imagine.
Actually, to me, laying the eternal salvation for one's entire family on the shoulders of a 14 year old girl is just wrong.
But we're supposed to revere Joseph Smith!
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Let's just put it out there for what it was and is. Joseph Smith was a narcissistic sexual addict with tons of charisma and was probably good in bed. I think he even surprised his parents with his dogma, and his followers, as they were used to his antics.