God asks you to practice polygamy ????? what would you do?

[_Jason Bourne]

What about the children Jason? Most polygamy is bound to cause a situation of poverty, reduced parental involvement particularly of the dad. And if it's the sort of polygamy promoted by J. Smith which is tied to religious belief ...polygamy is not a choice it ends up being perpetuated through indoctrination from a young age.

First lets get one thing straight. I am not defending LDS polygamy. I am not a fan of it, don't like it, believe it was an mistake to institute it and there is no question it would have been the end of the LDS Church had the Church not abandon it.

So what about the Children? I think it results in neglect for the children. How can a father parent the many children most plural marriages had? How can it be an intimate situation when the father is often absent? And sure there is the financial support as well. However I do not know the statistics on LDS polygamous families and how they fared financially.

I don't really find this abusive except maybe for Emma.

Ok but based on what I have read I do.

But the adults in the scenario you give (except Emma) are not being abused. They have a responsibility for their choices. They don't have to follow Smith, that's their choice. And they weren't indoctrinated from a young age.

I think you underestimate the charisma a strong religious leader has on their followers. Not only that but in Smiths case his followers were convinced he was a prophet on the caliber of Moses. So I still find his use of power and position to pressure women and even men into following the polygamous doctrine abusive.

He also used his position of power as well as some women's faith in him as a prophet to persuade them to marry him. All very abusive and repugnant.

No not really. If adults are so gullible as to believe Smith, that's their problem. Smith is not responsible for others stupidity.

Ok we will have to disagree to some extent. Of course there were some for whom this was the straw that broke their belief such as William Law. But he only believed Smith was a fallen prophet.

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"?

Perhaps that was an over statement. Yet if you read what many of the women in plural marriages wrote about it, it seems that many were quite happy, felt loved, believed it was of God and felt satisfied with their life. Many others did not of course. Perhaps that still does not remove the abuse it created. And sure, tying it to a religious doctrine makes it more compelling especailly as you note for those children raised in it.

The biggest issue may have been that top leaders seemed more succesful in obtaining women, teachings that a woman was justified in leaving her husband for another in higher power, teaching that such marriage was required to get to the highest reward in heaven-all this added to moral problems in the LDS practice of polygamy.

Jason the whole system of LDS polygamy was immoral, there is no justification for it.

I do not think I am arguing that it wasn't.

However, on the other hand it was not mandated and a person could opt out not to practice it and only 25% of the Church did so. As time progressed it seemed most who entered into polygamy did so of their own choice. So while it was rife with problems I am curious to know why you think it was worse than adultery if most he did it did so under their own choice?

So the ones who "did so of their own choice", subjected their children to indoctrination of it, using religious beliefs as justification. The liklihood the children would carry on polygamy was high..and keep in mind Smith's polygamy allowed for essentially handing over daughters at a young age to other men. So for women brought up in a polygamous system indoctrinated into the religious belief system which incorporated polygamy ..it's not likely the young women are capable of choosing rationally. It's an abusive system for women Jason, albeit there can be mitigating circumstances to justify polygamy, but Smith's or the LDS' polygamy has no mitigating circumstances to justify it.

I don't think I am disagreeing with you here.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

I think you are grossly in error on what I think. If you have followed me at all on this board you would know that LDS polygamy is the main issue that unraveled my belief in the LDS Church and JSs calling as a prophet. There are other issues as well. But this one is the lynch pin.

[_Pollypinks]

Jesus, Has nobody here read Todd Compton's book? Considerable research went into it, and it basically answers any questions anybody ever had about polygamy. Frankly I'm surprised they didn't ex him over it, so much of it is distasteful and painful. No, they weren't good fathers. No, they weren't even good men. And the women were left to starve much of the time. Or die in child birth. Let's examine that one sometime. If I have to spend my eternal life in the CK bearing children, I think I'd just as soon take my chances in a lower level.

[_Jason Bourne]

Comptons book is about the only book on Polygamy I have not read. But doesn't it just address Smith's wives?

[_Pollypinks]

Compton's book addresses Smith's wives to a degree that no one thought possible. It also addresses the issue of polygamy in general, the people who practiced it, and some, who got kicked out of the church because of it. It's not an easy read.

[_marg]

Perhaps that was an over statement. Yet if you read what many of the women in plural marriages wrote about it, it seems that many were quite happy, felt loved, believed it was of God and felt satisfied with their life. Many others did not of course. Perhaps that still does not remove the abuse it created. And sure, tying it to a religious doctrine makes it more compelling especailly as you note for those children raised in it.

It doesn't remove the abuse. People abused don't necessarily appreciate they are abused. We know now the "stockholm syndrome".

This is what I mean by you haven't come to terms yet. You do not fully appreciate the immorality of the LDS polygamy, how it treated and treats women as slaves and animals to breed. There was no consideration or respect for the women in that system. You can see this by just looking at the FLDS polygamy today..who are practicing polygamy as how Smith taught.

And women have been interviewed and say they are happy..but we've seen how people or females abducted and abused..end up thinking they "love" their abuser and don't even try to escape even though they may be subjected to horrific conditions. So what they say doesn't take away from the fact (which I'm hoping you'll appreciate)that the men do not and did not treat the women with any respect in the LDS polygamous system. It's an abusive immoral system. And you support a church which has not renounced it on moral grounds they've only complied with the law.

[_Jason Bourne]

This is what I mean by you haven't come to terms yet. You do not fully appreciate the immorality of the LDS polygamy, how it treated and treats women as slaves and animals to breed. There was no consideration or respect for the women in that system. You can see this by just looking at the FLDS polygamy today..who are practicing polygamy as how Smith taught.

And women have been interviewed and say they are happy..but we've seen how people or females abducted and abused..end up thinking they "love" their abuser and don't even try to escape even though they may be subjected to horrific conditions. So what they say doesn't take away from the fact (which I'm hoping you'll appreciate)that the men do not and did not treat the women with any respect in the LDS polygamous system. It's an abusive immoral system. And you support a church which has not renounced it on moral grounds they've only complied with the law.

And you are simply in error on how I view LDS polygamy. But my seemingly stating this more than once is not enough to convince you.


How much have you read on this subject marg?

[_marg]

Are you now suggesting it wasn't an immoral system and the way the men in the system treated women was with respect as opposed to they were viewed as slaves and breeding animals?

So far Jason you've suggested that perhaps it wasn't all that abusive since some women claimed to be happy. Please take a look at this information: http://counsellingresource.com/lib/ther ... stockholm/
Can't you appreciate just how disrespectful of women the system was? Are you not capable of assessing the treatment of others and appreciating abuse when you see it, even though individuals may not claim to be abused? You are still attempting to justify it when you say "some women claimed to be happy".

And now it appears you are suggesting that it's my lack of knowledge on polygamy for why I don't appreciate ..that it wasn't abusive for those who claimed to be happy.

You simply are not appreciating that it is a completely disrespectful and hateful system against the women..and there is no justification for this particular system under the circumstances it was started up and practiced.

by the way Jason perhaps you can explain how the FLDS polygamy is different than what J. Smith set up..I'm not the only one appreciating the abuse and that women are viewed as if cattle.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opinio ... story.html

Daphne Brahman: "This repugnant abuse of girls and the trading of them as if they were cattle has to end."

[_Jason Bourne]

Holy hell Marg, are you having a bad day?

No I am not attempting to justify LDS polygamy by relating some women seemed happy with their lot in life. But have you read even one word of what they said?

Yes I think it was an immoral and horribly hideous system. I never said it was not all that abusive.

Yes I think the LDS Church should renounce it and I am not happy vestiges of it remain by way of D&C 132 still being in the canon as well as the current policy that allows for men to be sealed to more than one woman if their spouse had died or if they are divorced.

Yes I am suggesting that you are poorly read on the history of this topic as well as defenses of it by apologists and those who are critical of it. The does not mean I disagree with most of your conclusions. But my question was really more curiouse. I have watched your methods in the past. You often attempt to speak with authority on things that it become clear you know little about. You tend to form an opinion then use a style of hammering home you point with an onslaught of rhetoric.

As for me personally I despise polygamy and already told you once that my research into it was the prime lynch pin of leading to my current lack of belief that the LDS Church is what it claimed.

What more do you want from me? I have no desire to defend LDS polygamy and I find it odd that with my position towards it on this board that you are arguing with me as if I do.

[_Jason Bourne]

by the way Jason perhaps you can explain how the FLDS polygamy is different than what J. Smith set up..I'm not the only one appreciating the abuse and that women are viewed as if cattle.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opinio ... story.html

Daphne Brahman: "This repugnant abuse of girls and the trading of them as if they were cattle has to end."

One last point.

I have often stated that had the LDS Church continues to practice polygamy it would look like the FLDS Church does today. The only difference may be that I do not have any evidence that Smith, Young or other LDS persons who practiced it was as abhorrent in their sexual activities with their younger wives as Warren Jeffs apparently was. But I do not know one way or the other.