1. Why did Joseph Smith keep the the extra women ("wives") hidden if there is nothing wrong with it?
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.
This has puzzled me to no end. Joseph Smith was a very fertile man. He and Emma got pregnant nine times during the relatively short time they were married. How does a man as fertile as Smith was consummate forty marriages without a single plural wife getting pregnant? I haven't been able to figure this one out.
Because Emma was impregnated by the Holy Ghost, you need to have faith in miracles.
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus.
Can anyone imagine a Mormon woman asking the question, "What exactly Is Wrong with Polygamy anyway?".
Yes I can! I had a single mother my wife and I hometaught back in Seattle in the early 1990s who actually said something to that effect.
mcjathan wrote:With all due respect Kevin, your question seems to highlight either an unwillingness or inability to put yourself in other people's shoes.
The irony that I see is that that is precisely the way I see the people on this forum who argue against polygamy. They have great empathy for the women in monogamous marriages, but no empathy at all for the Shirley Cooks of the world, the women for whom marriage and raising their own children are high priorities, but who end up never married and childless. Have you tried putting yourself in those women's shoes, McJathan? Or are they somehow subhuman because they never got married? Maybe we can just sweep them under the rug and pretend they don't exist. People like Shirley Cook don't matter, right?
????
If you want to edit a post, don't hit quote. This is the same post you made above, with some additions.
Although, you do repeat yourself frequently, so maybe this repeat post was intentional?
I cannot help but wonder how someone now would know that every male wishing marriage married. The statement sounds speculative.
Perhaps it would be worth it to ask the author of that Gospel Topics essay how s/he came to the conclusion that every male wishing marriage married.
in what way?
No, there's a reason these essays don't provide support. It's because the LDS church wants to assert something but can't support it. It renders the comment no more than opinion, and worthless in a factual or historical discussion.
I cannot help but wonder how someone now would know that every male wishing marriage married. The statement sounds speculative.
Perhaps it would be worth it to ask the author of that Gospel Topics essay how s/he came to the conclusion that every male wishing marriage married.
huckelberry wrote:I do not see any absolute rule against polygamy though I would not recommend it. If the LDS church continues to be unable to hold male membership and the US culture grows more accepting of marriage variation it might just come back into practice. I would certainly stay away from it.
And thus consign Shirley Cook to a permanently single life. And you're good with that?
Kevin, I wonder if you read what i said. If you and your wife wish to Marry Shirley Cook I will not make objections to the marriage. I will not not marry her. I have some sympathy for her but.. there are women who are not able to have children for a variety of reasons. They can have productive lives. I know a woman who spouse was sterile. She decided to teach grade school and made a happy life. Are you sure the emotional strains and hurts of a polygamous marriage are worth solving that one problem in that one way? Well perhaps you are.
Anyway, what is going on? is the church driving the men away? I do not remember a men shortage when I was attending. In fact for high school age (when I was in high school) there were about four guys for each girl in the church in the town. Naturally we all dated either out of the church or out of the town.
The website at "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Ireland" says of prominent feminist (and bisexual) Patricia Ireland that she is sexually active with both a woman and her current husband. Do you suspect that there is commoditization in that three-way relationship? What's the essential difference between it and a marriage between a man and two heterosexual women?
No, it doesn't say that. One might assume she has sex with each partner, but it's not stated. And it's not a 3 way relationship. Patricia Ireland has two separate relationships. Sort of like a Man with a wife, and a mistress in a different town. It's not a plural marriage, nor an equivalent to one.
Patricia Ireland, the new president of the National Organization for Women, first disclosed that she had a female companion in Washington as well as a husband in Florida in an interview last July with the New York Times.
Just a quick reminder for the poor souls on this thread:
Rhetorically, sealioning fuses persistent questioning—often about basic information, information easily found elsewhere, or unrelated or tangential points— ... It disguises itself as a sincere attempt to learn and communicate. Sealioning thus works both to exhaust a target's patience, attention, and communicative effort, and to portray the target as unreasonable. While the questions of the "sea lion" may seem innocent, they're intended maliciously and have harmful consequences.
— Amy Johnson, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society (May 2019)
Just a quick reminder for the poor souls on this thread:
Rhetorically, sealioning fuses persistent questioning—often about basic information, information easily found elsewhere, or unrelated or tangential points— ... It disguises itself as a sincere attempt to learn and communicate. Sealioning thus works both to exhaust a target's patience, attention, and communicative effort, and to portray the target as unreasonable. While the questions of the "sea lion" may seem innocent, they're intended maliciously and have harmful consequences.
— Amy Johnson, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society (May 2019)
