Polygamy, general discussion

June 30, 2005

Discussion on polygamy

16 Comments »

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://mormonopenforum.blogsome.com/2005/06/30/suggest-thread-topic-here/trackback/

  1. Polygamy is one of the most ridiculous, self-indulging practices ever manufactured by males holding priesthood “authority”.

    Comment by Lurch — June 30, 2005 @ 9:58 pm

  2. No way!

    Two babes are better than one, dummy.

    Comment by Eric Estrada — June 30, 2005 @ 10:55 pm

  3. Lurch,
    Do you think the church ditched it when the authorities recognized it wasn’t as much fun as it sounded? I mean honestly, the reality of polygamy must be pretty miserable, having more than one wife and dozens of children must be horribly overwhelming.

    Or do you think it was divinely inspired and divinely abandoned?

    Eric Estrada,
    I assume you aren’t married. Two may be better than one when you are dating, but when you’re married?… Don’t get me wrong, marriage can be wonderful. But it isn’t easy and times all the hard work by 2 or more??– no thanks!

    Comment by dew — June 30, 2005 @ 11:10 pm

  4. Dew,
    You wrote: “I mean honestly, the reality of polygamy must be pretty miserable, having more than one wife and dozens of children must be horribly overwhelming.”
    -My point exactly. It doesn’t sound like any celestial kingdom to look forward to.

    Comment by Lurch — June 30, 2005 @ 11:27 pm

  5. The church ditched it because they were being hounded by the U.S. Government. It was one of the “twin evils” (slavery and polygamy) and it was being rooted out. Polygamous families had to move to Mexico and some were split up. Woodruff himself was in hiding.

    Like other leaders, [Woodruff] had gone into seclusion to avoid imprisonment under provisions of federal anti-polygamy legislation before word came of President Taylor’s death. By the summer of 1890, legislation had been enacted that dissolved the Church as a legal entity, confiscated much of its property, and drove many of its leaders into hiding or prison. Federal legislation against polygamy had almost totally destroyed the effectiveness of the Church. For weeks President Woodruff “wrestled mightily with the Lord,” and then, on September 24, 1890, after seeing in vision the consequences of inaction, he issued his now-famous Manifesto of 1890, which announced the end of the official practice of plural marriage (D&C, Official Declaration-1). Read full article

    But, I think you’re right that it would be an awful lot of stress for a little extra play. These people had dozens of children - that’s an awful lot of mouths to feed. I think it tended to be practiced by men higher up in the church, so I don’t know if money was as much of an issue. But even money matters aside, I think it would be incredibly stressful.

    Comment by em — June 30, 2005 @ 11:38 pm

  6. That should actually say Some polygamous families moved to Mexico.

    Comment by em — June 30, 2005 @ 11:51 pm

  7. em,
    I appreciate your legal point and understand the pressures the government was exerting on the Saints. However, the saints didn’t really make decisions based on outside pressures. They made decision based on the dictates of their own conscience and revelation from God. They made that pretty clear by all that they were willing to endure for the sake of pursuing mormonism. I was just asking Lurch what his opinion was as he didn’t seem to think that it was a divine declaration.

    I tend to believe that polygamy is quite a sacrifice for all involved. I am afraid that polygamy is one commandment I may not be strong enough to follow if it was ever asked of me. It takes a pretty big person to be able to pull that one off.

    Comment by dew — July 1, 2005 @ 12:01 am

  8. I should say the saints didn’t make doctrinal decisions based on outside pressures…

    Comment by dew — July 1, 2005 @ 12:03 am

  9. Oh please. The church leaders had all sorts of major revelations at “convenient times”. Utah was doing back-flips trying to gain statehood when the Supreme Court barely ruled against polygamy. Dumping polygamy was the only way to come into compliance with the nation we were trying to join. Blacks gained the priesthood just after the US threatened to take away our non-profit status due to our denying blacks the priesthood. Not to mention that the church was being embarrassed by extremely public protests whenever BYU went to play many of their away games.

    I have no problem with anyone who says that that the Lord works in VERY practical ways to advance the church. But do not waste your breath saying the changes would have happened outside of the political climates where they occurred.

    Comment by Lurch — July 1, 2005 @ 12:23 am

  10. Lurch,
    Oh please is right. Don’t get me wrong. I am the first to admit that the Lord works in VERY practical ways and that I don’t know the half of it. I didn’t know that about the Blacks getting the priesthood coinciding with the non-profit status of the church. Funny.
    No, I don’t deny that revelation often coincides with political pressures. However, I think that it would be an injustice to discount all the sacrifices made by the saints when they were so often so courageously unwilling to bend to outside pressures. I cannot imagine being asked to make some of the sacrifices they were willing to make. The early saints were made of true grit and I think the fact that they could practice polygamy is proof of that.

    Comment by dew — July 1, 2005 @ 1:34 am

  11. Two wives w/ opossite reproductive cycles, now that would be heaven. Or should I have said four? That would give me horny woman ovulation week every week of the month!

    Comment by Steve (FSF) — July 1, 2005 @ 2:55 am

  12. And no PMS BS to worry about!

    Comment by Steve (FSF) — July 1, 2005 @ 2:59 am

  13. SFSF,
    How exactly would you avoid PMS? Seems to me every week would be PMS week and horny woman ovulation week. You would have to deal with all of it all the time. There would be no end and no break to the hormonal cycle.

    Comment by dew — July 1, 2005 @ 4:48 am

  14. Actually, there is a scientifically proven strong tendency for sexually mature woman who spend almost all of their time together under one roof to fall into the same menstrual cycle. The probability is high that most would be hitting PMS at the same time. Doh!

    Comment by Lurch — July 1, 2005 @ 5:20 am

  15. You guys are right, but I’m talking about two-four women with offset reproductive cycles under different roofs. Maybe that’s what heaven is like.

    Comment by Steve (FSF) — July 1, 2005 @ 12:47 pm

  16. The way I see it the real burden in polygamy is on the first wife who has to share hubby w/ the B wives. The B wives would just line up. I mean what women wouldn’t choose to be a B wife to a successful man over being an A wife to some poor asshole? I’m sure there were women in the church pressured to allow hubby additional wives, being told they were unrighteous for not sharing, etc, and that’s sad. That said, I think western civilization made a mistake rejecting polygamy entirely. Let’s face it, there are just not enough straight functioning men to go around and a lot of pussy/wombs go to waste.

    Comment by Steve (FSF) — July 2, 2005 @ 11:04 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>