Yet another polygamy thread....

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Post by _ajax18 »

truth dancer wrote:I find it interesting that the only people I have ever heard suggest that polygamy is the norm, are LDS men.

I seriously have never heard this from anyone else. The literature is clear that this is not the case. Anthropologists are consistent and in agreement that this is not the case yet some LDS men still hold onto this idea.

~dancer~


How do you explain polygamy that existed or at least seemed to exist a lot in primitive human societies. Is it a case of devolution or an aberration from the normal? How are the multiple mistresses of high ranking Roman men different from polygamy? They don't seem all that much different from our primate cousins to me. It sure seems like throughout history if men had the power to do it, they took as many wives as they could get. Are you saying that because most men didn't have the power to obtain multiple wives that this means that polygamy was not the norm? Maybe the act wasn't the norm, but the natural desire built into men surely is.

Do you believe that men have evolved to not have the desire to mate with multiple women? If they develop such a mental control, it's definitely developed and doesn't come naturally.

Secondly as we already discussed on a previous thread on what the universal laws and truths are we already came to the conclusion that different people are going to have different ideas about what that should be. I'm sure that George Bush's idea of the greater good and how evolution should unfold is very different from your idea. What makes your ideas better than his? To answer that you have to start answering what principles laws should be relative too. I don't think anyone has come up with a consistent set of those that doesn't eventually force the inventer to contradict himself. Naturally the ideal for men and women is not the same.

I don't necessarily think that a man controlling his desire to mate with multiple women is a bad thing. I for one can barely afford to reproduce with one woman and maintain a standard of living acceptable to me. Yet I don't think you should be surprised to know that your vision of heavan and what would be perfect rest would be different from a man's.

Are you saying that all these NonLDS men you're talking to are saying that they have no desire to mate with other women? Are you sure they're telling you the truth? In my experience the desire is there and it takes self mastery to put it off, yet it's always there and I haven't seen anything that would change that. It's just how evolution wired me. Notice that's not an excuse to not overcome the desire, but to say it's not there would be a lie.

Therefore it should come as no surprise that the idea of Heavan, perfect rest, and fulfillment would be very different for a man than a woman.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

Hi Ajax... :-)


How do you explain polygamy that existed or at least seemed to exist a lot in primitive human societies. Is it a case of devolution or an aberration from the normal?


It is not me that is saying anything. The research is extensive and thourough. Serial monogamy is far and away the norm the world over. Polygamy is rare and exclusive to the powerful, wealthy leaders/rulers.

How are the multiple mistresses of high ranking Roman men different from polygamy? They don't seem all that much different from our primate cousins to me.


The Romans outlawed polygamy because it was harming society. But the wealthy powerful men STILL had their way with women... of course. Less enlightened men embrace their animalistic instincts... men governed by their ego to own/have/sleep with multiple women justify their primitive actions but blaming it on their biology.

It sure seems like throughout history if men had the power to do it, they took as many wives as they could get.


Not until patriarchy. Prior to patriarchy there is no evidence of this at all. Only those with ego issues, men who believed women were to be owned, men who thought women were less than human, men who believed women were created to provide for the sexual pleasure of men, men who believed God gave women to men so they could have a few moments of sexual pleasure without care or concern for women engaged in this behavior.

Are you saying that because most men didn't have the power to obtain multiple wives that this means that polygamy was not the norm?


No.. the exact opposite. RESEARCH is clear than evolution favors monogamy and has for thousands of years. IT IS THE HUMAN male, who decided women were to be owned (patriarchy) when the idea of obtaining multiple women simultaneously came to exist.

In other words, going way back, as animals, (prior to male parental investment) males did nothing but donate sperm. That was it. But our ancestors discovered that if a male stayed around offspring survived better! This changed with patriarchy but prior to this serial monogamy was far and away the norm.

Maybe the act wasn't the norm, but the natural desire built into men surely is.


Do you believe that men have evolved to not have the desire to mate with multiple women? If they develop such a mental control, it's definitely developed and doesn't come naturally.


The animalistic history is within all of us. But with this is also the newer more highly evolved awareness for parental investment and bonding with a female. This is not debated. It is in the best interest of society and our species to mate as monogamous couples.

Secondly as we already discussed on a previous thread on what the universal laws and truths are we already came to the conclusion that different people are going to have different ideas about what that should be. I'm sure that George Bush's idea of the greater good and how evolution should unfold is very different from your idea. What makes your ideas better than his?


It has nothing to do with my ideas. It has to do with how the universe works and how humankind has evolved. This is not a mystery.

To answer that you have to start answering what principles laws should be relative too.


Nothing relative about it.

I don't think anyone has come up with a consistent set of those that doesn't eventually force the inventer to contradict himself. Naturally the ideal for men and women is not the same.


I disagree completely.

I don't necessarily think that a man controlling his desire to mate with multiple women is a bad thing. I for one can barely afford to reproduce with one woman and maintain a standard of living acceptable to me. Yet I don't think you should be surprised to know that your vision of heavan and what would be perfect rest would be different from a man's.


Speak for yourself. (smile) I find it interesting how LDS men justify this and look forward to the day (or dream about it), because they hold it as a reward. Other men I know consider the very thought harmful, and are able to release it as unhealthy, hurtful, wrong, or cruel idea. (depending on their belief system). Even the thought (for some men I know) is considered unGodly rather than something to look forward to as is the case for many LDS men.

Are you saying that all these NonLDS men you're talking to are saying that they have no desire to mate with other women?


No, I'm saying the only ones who justify polygamy are LDS men. My observation is that LDS men are more apt to hang onto the idea of sleeping with multiple women because it is accepted and considered of God. I think this is an imporant point.

Are you sure they're telling you the truth? In my experience the desire is there and it takes self mastery to put it off, yet it's always there and I haven't seen anything that would change that. It's just how evolution wired me. Notice that's not an excuse to not overcome the desire, but to say it's not there would be a lie.


Therefore it should come as no surprise that the idea of Heavan, perfect rest, and fulfillment would be very different for a man than a woman.


Speak for yourself. You assume all men want to spread their seed with as many females as possible. I know plenty of men for whom this is not the case. You also assume all women want one man. This is not the case either. What is true is that those men who made up the stories came up with ideas that THEY wanted without regard to women or children.

I'm having a lot of problems with this post cause something isn't working quite right so please forgive the errors... I'm too tired to go over it.

~dancer~
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Post by _ajax18 »

You assume all men want to spread their seed with as many females as possible.


No I'm stating that this is their natural inclination, and I'm also stating that the desire is always there. You can repress it, but it will always resurface.

I know plenty of men for whom this is not the case.


Sure because of conditioning that has occurred in their own lifetime. Whether that is natural or not is open to debate, but it certainly goes against our natural instincts and desires.

You also assume all women want one man.

I don't think even women themselves know what they want. Sorry, I couldn't resist. No seriously, I wasn't even addressing what women wanted. I know they didn't want their man mating with other women, but beyond that I haven't considered. It might be interesting though because women do cheat as well, and I have harder time understanding the underlying motives. Whereas for men, it's pretty clear to me.

This is not the case either. What is true is that those men who made up the stories came up with ideas that THEY wanted without regard to women or children.


I never said they were considerate to anyone, women or men, since most men are hurt by polygamy in life as well. I asked what the rules should be and you mentioned the golden rule. What do you think of open marriages where both people have basically agreed to allow cheating. That follows the golden rule, but it sure does go against LDS doctrine?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Plutarch wrote:
harmony wrote:Insufficient, Plu. Henry, etc are all just men. The same applies to them as to any prophet. Don't you get it? MEN ARE OFTEN WRONG. There is nothing in the Bible that leads me to believe that God would give his daughters to his sons, as if they were cattle. I'm not saying that men didn't try, but God is not responsible for plural marriage, concubinage, etc: men are.


Yer just basically throwing out the scriptures as a common ground between us. A by the book religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) relies on the book for precedent as God's word to man. If you discount all scriptural references (and commentary thereon) as the words of suspect men, then there is just your gut and your feel for what you think is right.


Scripture is written by men, and accepted by men as God-given. That doesn't mean it actually is God-given. Commentary has even less foundation.

My gut feeling, as you put it, is my personal inspiration, which, of course, is exactly what our prophets tell us is the proper way to determine if something is correct. Study it out, pray about it, and then go with your gut feeling/personal inspiration.

Your problem is you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want the prophets to be infallible, accepted absolutely. That takes the onus off of you. You don't have to make any decisions, take personal responsibility for anything. The prophet says something, and that's good enough for you. Well, that's not good enough for me. If my gut feeling tells me something is amiss, I go with my gut feeling. I've learned to trust it. I've learned to mistrust men.
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

Hi Ajax...

Sorry about the messy post last night. The scroll function was being weird .... OK maybe this will make more sense.


No I'm stating that this is their natural inclination, and I'm also stating that the desire is always there. You can repress it, but it will always resurface.


Nope. It is the natural inclination for both men and women to pair bond. No question about this.

Perhaps in you the desire for multiple simultaneous partners is always there but this is not the case for most men. As I mentioned the world over men and women ((95%) PREFER and practice monogamy.

Now this is not to say there is not infidelity which is a totally different thing. Both men and women (equally in environments where the possiblitiy is available for both partners) may have an relationship on the side at some point.


Quote:
I know plenty of men for whom this is not the case.


Sure because of conditioning that has occurred in their own lifetime. Whether that is natural or not is open to debate, but it certainly goes against our natural instincts and desires.


Nope! Because of evolution not conditioning. Humankind has evolved beyond animalistic mating. You are wrong that monogamy goes against our natural instincts and desires. Humans have evolved to pair bond. No question about this.

Quote:
You also assume all women want one man.

I don't think even women themselves know what they want. Sorry, I couldn't resist. No seriously, I wasn't even addressing what women wanted. I know they didn't want their man mating with other women, but beyond that I haven't considered. It might be interesting though because women do cheat as well, and I have harder time understanding the underlying motives. Whereas for men, it's pretty clear to me.


It is very clear why men and women cheat. It has to do with mating strategies. Both men and women, when given equal opportunity cheat about equally. Men cheat so they can be assured of spreading their seed. Women cheat so they can be assured of resources. (OK this is really simplifying things but generally). Women want romance novels, men want porn. Simple! LOL! Both men and women will engage in extra marital mating under the right circumstances.

But the reality is both men and women, can move beyond this desire and happily pair bond for life without desires for others. This is the reality. It is not repression or denial or conditioning. It has to do with advanced evolution; enlightened men and women, or spiritual mastery, in my opinion.


Quote:
This is not the case either. What is true is that those men who made up the stories came up with ideas that THEY wanted without regard to women or children.


I never said they were considerate to anyone, women or men, since most men are hurt by polygamy in life as well. I asked what the rules should be and you mentioned the golden rule. What do you think of open marriages where both people have basically agreed to allow cheating. That follows the golden rule, but it sure does go against LDS doctrine?


Pair bonding in humankind has evolved because it is in the best interest of men, women, children, our society, and our species. There is no question about this whatsoever. It has nothing to do with morality, or what anyone thinks, it has to do with the history of our species.

If ADULTS want to engage in whatever form of partnering they feel is best, so be it. So long as children are not hurt adults are free to do as they wish. There have been numerous examples throughout history and all over our world of alternate types of arrangements and they have all been studied in depth. FEW forms of alternative mating work for any length of time and virtually always they have to do with some unusual environmental or cultural situation (few women so polyandry exists, ownership of women, so polygamy exists etc).

Polygamy just does not work under normal circumstances. Too much of society is harmed, children suffer, women are unhappy, men are left without partners. It just doesn't work and humankind has known this for hundreds of thousands of years (subconsciously at least).

To address your comments on my personal opinion... I go with humankind attempting to further the story of the universe as we know it for the past 13.7 billion years. In the human, the universe has continually brought forth more care, more love, more compassion, more attentiveness, more nurturing, and more depth of intimacy and emotion. I find this AMAZING! I can't even describe how incredible this is to me. It is through pair bonding that we see the depth of beauty that is possible in humankind. This is new to our known universe and in my opinion should be celebrated and honored and glorified as one of the most amazing accomplishments of our existence.

So for me, that which sustains, supports, encourages, helps, promotes this beautiful, holy (in my way of thinking), and most wonderful of human emotions should not be stamped out, thwarted, and destroyed.

Humans returning to a very primitive form of mating, seems to me to be totally against what the universe has brought forth...the most amazing ability in our known universe.

OK... last point! LOL!

I find it interesting that the "story" that men were made to have sex with every women who walks by, and women enjoy being with many women attached to one man UNBELIEVABLE! I only hear this in LDS men. I think it has to do with the need to rationalize what went on in the early days of the church but I can't think of even one person outside of LDS men who buy into this idea. It is nonsensical and utterly a make-believe story! :-)

You know what is disturbing... LDS men (some of them anyway), by holding to the idea that polygamy is the way of the God, and men were created to engage in multiple partnering creates or promotes the very desire. It is as if (some) LDS men hold to the idea that this primitive urge is a great thing and someday they will be able to sleep with all the women they want. I think most non-LDS men do not share this idea (with the exception of some Muslims). I think the vast majority of decent men think sleeping around is wrong and they need to overcome this animalistic urge not wait for the day to indulge it. My observation is that those men who realize from where this animalistic urge comes are the ones who move beyond it to embrace something much more meaningful and beautiful.

I wonder how this very odd belief of LDS men plays into the marriage relationship. I can't but think it is harmful.

~dancer~
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Post by _ajax18 »

Now this is not to say there is not infidelity which is a totally different thing. Both men and women (equally in environments where the possiblitiy is available for both partners) may have an relationship on the side at some point.


Relationships on the side seem like simultaneous partners to me. People may even leave one partner for another.



I find it interesting that the "story" that men were made to have sex with every women who walks by, and women enjoy being with many women attached to one man UNBELIEVABLE! I only hear this in LDS men. I think it has to do with the need to rationalize what went on in the early days of the church but I can't think of even one person outside of LDS men who buy into this idea. It is nonsensical and utterly a make-believe story! :-)


I got this off the discovery channel. I've heard from a lot of different sources. I've also heard women who have little contact or knowledge of Mormons complain about men using these ideas to justify infidelity. I don't think it's exclusively LDS men by any means. The part about women being happy with a polygamous relationship, I agree, most women don't like it, and yes women have desires to cheat as well.

If ADULTS want to engage in whatever form of partnering they feel is best, so be it. So long as children are not hurt adults are free to do as they wish.


People get divorced, remarry, and subject children to stepmarriages. This clearly hurts children. I don't think you can necessarily seek the best interests of the child to the point that you completely ignore the rights of both father and mother. That's why coming up with a set of rules that works for everyone is a very difficult task. It's not easy to make everything fair to everyone. Perhaps patriarchy was shortsighted but I'm not ready to judge them as completely inconsiderate of women and children. Unfair, perhaps, but I don't think they were completely bad either.

I'll point out that even with plural marriage, a man can't marry every woman he sees. Hence you're always going to need some self control. So I think you do have a point.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_Mercury
_Emeritus
Posts: 5545
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:14 pm

Re: Yet another polygamy thread....

Post by _Mercury »

liz3564 wrote:One of the reasons I think that so many of us who are faithful to the Church have problems with the principle of plural marriage is that it seems to be counter to everything else the gospel proports.

When you are married in the temple, you are counseled to form a partnership. The whole gospel revolves around the partnership with your spouse and with God.

I could never come to terms with the possibility of sharing my spouse with another woman. It would just be too much of an invasion of the emotional and physical bond we share.

I'm interested in thoughts from both sides of the aisle on this.


Mormon polygamy is a way to do several things:

1. Cover up joe sleeping with little girls, mens wives and any one else he could bed under the guise of "marriage".

2. Establish a gifting relationship between Mormon elite.
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning
Post Reply