Of Psychology And Polygamy.

Fiannan · October 29, 2005

Why should this be an all or nothing proposition?

Several posters talk in GENERAL terms as if all men and all women were the same -- aside from B.F. Skinner and a few behaviorists who reject both choice and the existence of individual personality I really believe most people recognize that people are different.

There are some women who demand all their man's attention, others who would be just as pleased to make an appointment with him for a variety of reasons.

There are some women who divorce their man if he looks at pretty women too often while there are others who not only tolerate him having a misteress, but some encourage it.

I know one couple in which the man and woman doesn't feel it cheating if they bring in another woman occasionally for...well, you know(I do not see this as moral, but they are very devoted and close to one another).

There are some women who reject polygamy completely, but others who would find it a wonderful option.

So if there is a percentage of women who might desire polygamy for the following reasons, why not allow it?

1) Believing it is something that makes for a more spiritual family.

2) Believing that it's better to marry and share a great man than settle on a non-desirable one, or not have any husband and kids at all.

3) Maybe the woman has a low sex drive but her man has a high one.

4) And while it may not be a celestial arrangement there are probably bi-sexual women who want a man in their life, and desire children, but might prefer to also have a female in the marriage.

Unless someone can show me that ALL women want a monogamous arrangement no matter what then please avoid speaking in sweeping generalities.

StrawberryFields · October 29, 2005

Originally posted by Fiannan@Oct 29 2005, 10:06 AM
Why should this be an all or nothing proposition?
Several posters talk in GENERAL terms as if all men and all women were the same -- aside from B.F. Skinner and a few behaviorists who reject both choice and the existence of individual personality I really believe most people recognize that people are different.
There are some women who demand all their man's attention, others who would be just as pleased to make an appointment with him for a variety of reasons.
There are some women who divorce their man if he looks at pretty women too often while there are others who not only tolerate him having a misteress, but some encourage it.
I know one couple in which the man and woman doesn't feel it cheating if they bring in another woman occasionally for...well, you know(I do not see this as moral, but they are very devoted and close to one another).
There are some women who reject polygamy completely, but others who would find it a wonderful option.
So if there is a percentage of women who might desire polygamy for the following reasons, why not allow it?
1) Believing it is something that makes for a more spiritual family.
2) Believing that it's better to marry and share a great man than settle on a non-desirable one, or not have any husband and kids at all.
3) Maybe the woman has a low sex drive but her man has a high one.
4) And while it may not be a celestial arrangement there are probably bi-sexual women who want a man in their life, and desire children, but might prefer to also have a female in the marriage.
Unless someone can show me that ALL women want a monogamous arrangement no matter what then please avoid speaking in sweeping generalities.
←

Why are you here?

Did you come to TROLL?

If you are into this and you can find SEVERAL willing partners then go for it.

Your idea here does not support what the majority of the members of the church believe so why bother?

October 29, 2005

Originally posted by Fiannan@Oct 29 2005, 10:06 AM
Why should this be an all or nothing proposition?
Several posters talk in GENERAL terms as if all men and all women were the same -- aside from B.F. Skinner and a few behaviorists who reject both choice and the existence of individual personality I really believe most people recognize that people are different.
There are some women who demand all their man's attention, others who would be just as pleased to make an appointment with him for a variety of reasons.
There are some women who divorce their man if he looks at pretty women too often while there are others who not only tolerate him having a misteress, but some encourage it.
I know one couple in which the man and woman doesn't feel it cheating if they bring in another woman occasionally for...well, you know(I do not see this as moral, but they are very devoted and close to one another).
There are some women who reject polygamy completely, but others who would find it a wonderful option.
So if there is a percentage of women who might desire polygamy for the following reasons, why not allow it?
1) Believing it is something that makes for a more spiritual family.
2) Believing that it's better to marry and share a great man than settle on a non-desirable one, or not have any husband and kids at all.
3) Maybe the woman has a low sex drive but her man has a high one.
4) And while it may not be a celestial arrangement there are probably bi-sexual women who want a man in their life, and desire children, but might prefer to also have a female in the marriage.
Unless someone can show me that ALL women want a monogamous arrangement no matter what then please avoid speaking in sweeping generalities.
←

It really sounds like you are already there... and just trying to get others to agree with where you are... how many women do you have already... or are you looking among these on LDS talk for one who will join your herd??

Fiannan · October 29, 2005

Please and Strawberry Fields, you pose some interesting questions (although in a somewhat ad homonym attack -- conveying a defensive tactic that in debate loses you points). Let me use an analogy to make the point that I am trying to convey.

I eat meat. I eat all kinds of meat -- chicken, fish, beef, pork, etc.). And while I have eaten dog before (it's not that bad) I do not eat eat as a habit.

Now in China they do eat dogs -- they eat 'em in much of Asia and according to my father-in-law you can get dog meat in Turkey as well.

Animal rights activists have tried to use the dog meat thing to attack eating meat in general -- and they do have a somewhat valid point, that is, what's the difference between eating a dog or eating a cow? To them it is just wrong and they will use horror stories from Chinese animal markets to paint meat eating as horrific.

However, do I condemn eating dogs from a moral or ethical standpoint? No I don't. You see, I recognize that eating dogs was quite common in the early 1800s and in fact one of the main protein sources for the Lewis and Clark expedition was dog meat purchased from various Indian tribes along the journey.

Now if I condemn eating dogs as immoral then I must also say that people in Lewis and Clark's time period were committing an immoral act -- which, perhaps to an avid dog lover might paint them as savages. I don't believe they were. And I can't find anything in the scriptures (is it in the Mosaic Law, I don't know but the New Testament overrules that anyway) to say it is immoral to eat a dog. Now laws enacted by custom in our society might make it illegal to eat a dog, but we must recognize that those laws are based soley on societal preferences, not the scriptures or any really strong ethical argument that also couldn't be used to outlaw eating any sort of meat.

In that sense if I heard a local immigrant family from a part of the world that eating dogs is fine were caught roasting a dog for dinner (and they were arrested) if I sat on a jury I would vote to free them. That doen't mean I plan on rasing a kennel full of dogs for dinner, it's just not morally objectionable from any standpoint to make it illegal.

Members of the Church make a critical error if they say anything attacking polygamy since to do so they must also attack Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and many prophets of the Old Testament. I think my position of understanding that there is nothing wrong with it, that I would not object to it being reinstated, but until it is sanctioned again by the Church I would not entertain the idea of entering into it is the only sound position to take without either confusing non-members or creating a severe case of cognitive dissonance in our membership.

I believe also that in order to fully understand polygamy and not treat it as an aberation, we should recognize the positive aspects of it, at least recognize theat it is not a form of adultery or fornication by Biblical standards, and that is my goal.

StrawberryFields · October 30, 2005

Originally posted by Fiannan@Oct 29 2005, 03:54 PM
Please and Strawberry Fields, you pose some interesting questions (although in a somewhat ad homonym attack -- conveying a defensive tactic that in debate loses you points). Let me use an analogy to make the point that I am trying to convey.
I eat meat. I eat all kinds of meat -- chicken, fish, beef, pork, etc.). And while I have eaten dog before (it's not that bad) I do not eat eat as a habit.
Now in China they do eat dogs -- they eat 'em in much of Asia and according to my father-in-law you can get dog meat in Turkey as well.
Animal rights activists have tried to use the dog meat thing to attack eating meat in general -- and they do have a somewhat valid point, that is, what's the difference between eating a dog or eating a cow? To them it is just wrong and they will use horror stories from Chinese animal markets to paint meat eating as horrific.
However, do I condemn eating dogs from a moral or ethical standpoint? No I don't. You see, I recognize that eating dogs was quite common in the early 1800s and in fact one of the main protein sources for the Lewis and Clark expedition was dog meat purchased from various Indian tribes along the journey.
Now if I condemn eating dogs as immoral then I must also say that people in Lewis and Clark's time period were committing an immoral act -- which, perhaps to an avid dog lover might paint them as savages. I don't believe they were. And I can't find anything in the scriptures (is it in the Mosaic Law, I don't know but the New Testament overrules that anyway) to say it is immoral to eat a dog. Now laws enacted by custom in our society might make it illegal to eat a dog, but we must recognize that those laws are based soley on societal preferences, not the scriptures or any really strong ethical argument that also couldn't be used to outlaw eating any sort of meat.
In that sense if I heard a local immigrant family from a part of the world that eating dogs is fine were caught roasting a dog for dinner (and they were arrested) if I sat on a jury I would vote to free them. That doen't mean I plan on rasing a kennel full of dogs for dinner, it's just not morally objectionable from any standpoint to make it illegal.
Members of the Church make a critical error if they say anything attacking polygamy since to do so they must also attack Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and many prophets of the Old Testament. I think my position of understanding that there is nothing wrong with it, that I would not object to it being reinstated, but until it is sanctioned again by the Church I would not entertain the idea of entering into it is the only sound position to take without either confusing non-members or creating a severe case of cognitive dissonance in our membership.
I believe also that in order to fully understand polygamy and not treat it as an aberation, we should recognize the positive aspects of it, at least recognize theat it is not a form of adultery or fornication by Biblical standards, and that is my goal.
←

Sorry Flannan, I could not read your post after you mentioned that you eat dogs...made me sick

pushka · October 30, 2005

I often become confused with LDS references to the OT and the NT...as in the above...Fiannan mentions the Mosaic Law being replaced by the NT, then he goes on to defend a practice that he states 'the Prophets of the OT' took part in, as if that makes it right...

How come this practice was not replaced by the laws of the NT and Jesus?

Fiannan · October 30, 2005

Sorry Flannan, I could not read your post after you mentioned that you eat dogs...made me sick

Strawberry Fields, that is your personal preference. A Muslim sees nothing wrong with polygamy but would be sicked by the idea of eating pork. You may have just made my point more than you intended.

And as I said, I've tried it but it's not on my regular menu. Do you also look down on Lewis and Clark -- they preferred dog over salmon (they detested salmon meat).

And Pushka, the laws and penalties of the Old Testament in reference to the Mosaic Law changed with the New Testament (not the moral principles however) -- just as events in Genesis are sometimes confusing as the Mosaic Law was not in force then -- for instance Jacab married two sisters which was not permitted LATER by the Mosaic Law or the matter of Abraham and Sarah being married despite having the same father (different mother).

begood2 · October 30, 2005

Originally posted by Fiannan@Oct 29 2005, 10:06 AM
Why should this be an all or nothing proposition?
Several posters talk in GENERAL terms as if all men and all women were the same -- aside from B.F. Skinner and a few behaviorists who reject both choice and the existence of individual personality I really believe most people recognize that people are different.
There are some women who demand all their man's attention, others who would be just as pleased to make an appointment with him for a variety of reasons.
There are some women who divorce their man if he looks at pretty women too often while there are others who not only tolerate him having a misteress, but some encourage it.
I know one couple in which the man and woman doesn't feel it cheating if they bring in another woman occasionally for...well, you know(I do not see this as moral, but they are very devoted and close to one another).
There are some women who reject polygamy completely, but others who would find it a wonderful option.
So if there is a percentage of women who might desire polygamy for the following reasons, why not allow it?
1) Believing it is something that makes for a more spiritual family.
2) Believing that it's better to marry and share a great man than settle on a non-desirable one, or not have any husband and kids at all.
3) Maybe the woman has a low sex drive but her man has a high one.
4) And while it may not be a celestial arrangement there are probably bi-sexual women who want a man in their life, and desire children, but might prefer to also have a female in the marriage.
Unless someone can show me that ALL women want a monogamous arrangement no matter what then please avoid speaking in sweeping generalities.
←

Would you be in favor of polyandry as well ... in which a woman has more that one husband?

How would you feel if the word female were replaced in each of your statements with the word male? I wonder how wonderful a male would have to be to accept it?

StrawberryFields · October 30, 2005

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Oct 28 2005, 04:58 PM-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Oct 28 2005, 03:12 PM
Personally, I think the only thing wonderful women find difficult about accepting the LDS idea of polygamy is the idea that more than one wonderful woman would be having “sex” with their husband. Or in other words, it’s all about the “sex”.
For instance, would any wonderful woman really have a problem with other wonderful women helping them take care of their children?… or their house?… or their household chores? Or would any wonderful woman really have a problem associating with other wonderful women living in the same house, or area, if it was a big enough house for everyone to have their own “space”?
Let’s face it. The only problem is with the “sex”, and if wonderful women could only find a way to handle the idea that it’s “okay” for other wonderful women to have “sex” with their husband, it wouldn’t be a problem.
And btw, I’m saying “wonderful” women because every woman worthy of living in the Celestial kingdom would necessarily have to be a “wonderful” woman, so please don’t associate the worst of women you have ever known with the type of women you might imagine your husband having as additional wives.
←
Yeah I bet you could go for many wonderful women couldn't you?
For me it isn't only about the sex. It's much more complex then that. I don't believe that anyone else should be involved in the relationship (which means many things) of me and my husband. What happens in the hereafter I am sure I will be wonderful enough to handle it.
←

Ray, I answered your question that followed this but you haven't answered mine.

StrawberryFields · October 30, 2005

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Oct 29 2005, 12:53 PM-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Fiannan@Oct 29 2005, 10:06 AM
Why should this be an all or nothing proposition?
Several posters talk in GENERAL terms as if all men and all women were the same -- aside from B.F. Skinner and a few behaviorists who reject both choice and the existence of individual personality I really believe most people recognize that people are different.
There are some women who demand all their man's attention, others who would be just as pleased to make an appointment with him for a variety of reasons.
There are some women who divorce their man if he looks at pretty women too often while there are others who not only tolerate him having a misteress, but some encourage it.
I know one couple in which the man and woman doesn't feel it cheating if they bring in another woman occasionally for...well, you know(I do not see this as moral, but they are very devoted and close to one another).
There are some women who reject polygamy completely, but others who would find it a wonderful option.
So if there is a percentage of women who might desire polygamy for the following reasons, why not allow it?
1) Believing it is something that makes for a more spiritual family.
2) Believing that it's better to marry and share a great man than settle on a non-desirable one, or not have any husband and kids at all.
3) Maybe the woman has a low sex drive but her man has a high one.
4) And while it may not be a celestial arrangement there are probably bi-sexual women who want a man in their life, and desire children, but might prefer to also have a female in the marriage.
Unless someone can show me that ALL women want a monogamous arrangement no matter what then please avoid speaking in sweeping generalities.
←
Why are you here?
Did you come to TROLL?
If you are into this and you can find SEVERAL willing partners then go for it.
Your idea here does not support what the majority of the members of the church believe so why bother?
←

Flannan,

You haven't answered why you come here....

StrawberryFields · October 30, 2005

Originally posted by Please+Oct 29 2005, 12:59 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Fiannan@Oct 29 2005, 10:06 AM
Why should this be an all or nothing proposition?

Several posters talk in GENERAL terms as if all men and all women were the same -- aside from B.F. Skinner and a few behaviorists who reject both choice and the existence of individual personality I really believe most people recognize that people are different.

There are some women who demand all their man's attention, others who would be just as pleased to make an appointment with him for a variety of reasons.

There are some women who divorce their man if he looks at pretty women too often while there are others who not only tolerate him having a misteress, but some encourage it.

I know one couple in which the man and woman doesn't feel it cheating if they bring in another woman occasionally for...well, you know(I do not see this as moral, but they are very devoted and close to one another).

There are some women who reject polygamy completely, but others who would find it a wonderful option.

So if there is a percentage of women who might desire polygamy for the following reasons, why not allow it?

1) Believing it is something that makes for a more spiritual family.
2) Believing that it's better to marry and share a great man than settle on a non-desirable one, or not have any husband and kids at all.
3) Maybe the woman has a low sex drive but her man has a high one.
4) And while it may not be a celestial arrangement there are probably bi-sexual women who want a man in their life, and desire children, but might prefer to also have a female in the marriage.

Unless someone can show me that ALL women want a monogamous arrangement no matter what then please avoid speaking in sweeping generalities.
←

It really sounds like you are already there... and just trying to get others to agree with where you are... how many women do you have already... or are you looking among these on LDS talk for one who will join your herd??

←

LOL

Please you may be onto something here...

He thinks women should have lots of children...

He talks about polygamy like it is his passion...

He hasn't listed his religion.

Fiannan · October 30, 2005

Yeah, whatever Strawberry Fields. I am not looking for any more women -- and if I were there are much better places than on a debate/discussion forum. And if you want to play in rhetorics, why do YOU come here?

I am quite devout LDS thank you. So don't go there.

I am going to repeat my premise here to explain my stand on polygamy and LDS reasoning. What do you find objectionable here (aside from bassett burgers)?

Let me use an analogy to make the point that I am trying to convey.