Of Psychology And Polygamy.

[dizzysmiles]

guys just for kicks, if your wives were commanded to marry more husbands how would you feel? do you think they would accept you marrying another woman better than youc could accept her bringing home another man?

[Fiannan]

Dizzysmiles, interesting question. Very, very few societies have ever accepted such a thing. May be due to simple biology -- women cannot carry many children during their lives.

However, one gentleman I know who is a hyper Darwinian said that if his wife decided to bring home another woman to share (with both) that might allow him to do his work undisturbed occasionally. Then from a Darwinistic perspective...

So jealosy might not be a big deal for many men in such circumstances.

[dizzysmiles]

if she got fixed or used b.c would men want to share their wife? i highly doubt they would in bed. so anwser the question, if she were commanded to get another husband tomarrow how would you feel?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

I don't have much of an opinion on polygamy...I tend to favor laws that give people more freedom to do what they want, as long as it is not infringing on anyone elses rights.

I do seem to remember that in the commandment given to Joseph Smith, he still had to get permission from wife #1 before taking new wives.

D&C 132:61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified;

If polygamy was reinstated, with a law stating that wife #1 must give her permission to her husband, I don't see why that would be a problem...because women who did not want their husbands to marry a second wife (such as the majority on this forum) could refuse him permission...and it would not be considered disobedient to God, because God commanded that wife #1 makes the final decision.

One might argue, however, that a careful reading of D&C 132 seems to indicate that although Joseph Smith might have been required to get permisson from Emma to marry more wives, The Lord also threatened to "destroy" Emma if she did not accept polygamy. So she may have given her permission because of her fear of the Lord's wrath.

On the other hand...if polygamy is reinstated someday...is it likely that The Lord will be threatening the lives of LDS women?

I doubt it.

I think that if the Lord is really in charge of this Church, then he has apparantly been quite content to let the Prophets and Apostles run things themselves, and only stepping in occasionally to give them revelation via "good feelings". That is to say...he is not shouting commands and threats from the Heavens anymore. So if this trend continues, I think wives will basically have control over whether or not their husband can become a polygamist, unless they happen to get a "good feeling" about polygamy, in which case it will not be a problem anyway.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Please@Nov 2 2005, 03:25 PM

Fiannan : When LDS people at least acknowledge that the period that was polygamist was not some sort of strange or deviant thing in which we need to make apologies for then I think the testimonies we can share with others will be stronger and more sincere.

A true LDS will not feel that it was deviant thing which needs to be apolgized for. Only the anti's think that...

←

...or someone whose thinking has been influenced by anti propaganda.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Ray+Nov 2 2005, 05:43 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Please@Nov 2 2005, 03:25 PM

Fiannan : When LDS people at least acknowledge that the period that was polygamist was not some sort of strange or deviant thing in which we need to make apologies for then I think the testimonies we can share with others will be stronger and more sincere.

A true LDS will not feel that it was deviant thing which needs to be apolgized for. Only the anti's think that...

←

...or someone whose thinking has been influenced by anti propaganda.

←

Same difference... luke warm and all... spewed out anyway...

[Ray]

Originally posted by Please+Nov 2 2005, 04:54 PM-->

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 2 2005, 05:43 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Please@Nov 2 2005, 03:25 PM

Fiannan : When LDS people at least acknowledge that the period that was polygamist was not some sort of strange or deviant thing in which we need to make apologies for then I think the testimonies we can share with others will be stronger and more sincere.

A true LDS will not feel that it was deviant thing which needs to be apolgized for. Only the anti's think that...

←

...or someone whose thinking has been influenced by anti propaganda.

←

Same difference... luke warm and all... spewed out anyway...

←

I don't think so. Some people are simply misinformed, or don't know any better, without being "opposed" to anything in particular, which is not how I regard an "anti" anything.

Or in other words, some people are kept from the knowledge of the truth simply because they don't know where to find it, and not knowing the truth, they only know what they have heard from other people. And an "anti" [whatever] is someone who actually acts out "against" [whatever].

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Ray+Nov 2 2005, 06:08 PM-->

Originally posted by Please@Nov 2 2005, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 2 2005, 05:43 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Please@Nov 2 2005, 03:25 PM

Fiannan : When LDS people at least acknowledge that the period that was polygamist was not some sort of strange or deviant thing in which we need to make apologies for then I think the testimonies we can share with others will be stronger and more sincere.

A true LDS will not feel that it was deviant thing which needs to be apolgized for. Only the anti's think that...

←

...or someone whose thinking has been influenced by anti propaganda.

←

Same difference... luke warm and all... spewed out anyway...

←

I don't think so. Some people are simply misinformed, or don't know any better, without being "opposed" to anything in particular, which is not how I regard an "anti" anything.

Or in other words, some people are kept from the knowledge of the truth simply because they don't know where to find it, and not knowing the truth, they only know what they have heard from other people. And an "anti" [whatever] is someone who actually acts out "against" [whatever].

←

Well they must be actively engaged in a good cause... and they must first obtain their errand from the Lord... and they must first be warned and then warn their brother...

If they are sleeping on the job... they are luke warm.. and if you aint for 'em... you are against them...

[Ray]

Originally posted by Please+Nov 2 2005, 05:11 PM-->

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 2 2005, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Please@Nov 2 2005, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 2 2005, 05:43 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Please@Nov 2 2005, 03:25 PM

Fiannan : When LDS people at least acknowledge that the period that was polygamist was not some sort of strange or deviant thing in which we need to make apologies for then I think the testimonies we can share with others will be stronger and more sincere.

A true LDS will not feel that it was deviant thing which needs to be apolgized for. Only the anti's think that...

←

...or someone whose thinking has been influenced by anti propaganda.

←

Same difference... luke warm and all... spewed out anyway...

←

I don't think so. Some people are simply misinformed, or don't know any better, without being "opposed" to anything in particular, which is not how I regard an "anti" anything.

Or in other words, some people are kept from the knowledge of the truth simply because they don't know where to find it, and not knowing the truth, they only know what they have heard from other people. And an "anti" [whatever] is someone who actually acts out "against" [whatever].

←

Well they must be actively engaged in a good cause... and they must first obtain their errand from the Lord... and they must first be warned and then warn their brother...

If they are sleeping on the job... they are luke warm.. and if you aint for 'em... you are against them...

←

Not necessarily. Some people who are "ignorant" are not "anti" or "for" the cause because they haven't made a choice yet, though I do agree that they need to wake up. And I firmly believe we all will.

[pushka]

You men still refusing to give a straightforward answer as to whether or not you would be happy if your wife was told by God that she had to take on extra husbands?

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Ray : Not necessarily. Some people who are "ignorant" are not "anti" or "for" the cause because they haven't made a choice yet, though I do agree that they need to wake up. And I firmly believe we all will.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by pushka@Nov 2 2005, 06:15 PM

You men still refusing to give a straightforward answer as to whether or not you would be happy if your wife was told by God that she had to take on extra husbands?

←

If God commanded women to take multiple husbands, under the same circumstances as D&C 132, I would simply refuse to allow my wife to do it.

Not because I believe I have authority over my wife...no...but because, as I mentioned on page 7 of this thread, D&C clearly states that wife #1 has the right to deny her husband permission to practice polygamy.

So in this hypothetical situation, husband #1 would have the same rights.

Someone please read that post I wrote on the last page and tell me if I am wrong.

[pushka]

Thanks for replying Tao...yes I did realise that the same privelidge would be given to the 1st husband as would be given to the 1st wife under these circumstances...

I'm a little confused about the other bit in your previous post, about Emma being condemned (not using your words directly, just trying to use a word that conjures up the same meaning...hope it's the right one) if she didn't give him her permission...can you explain that a little further, and tell me if she would be? This would follow that all wives/husbands refusing their partners the additional husband/wife would also be condemned...sort of makes their choice a bit of a farce doesn't it!

[DisRuptive1]

It's not really all that important is it? The second wife and so on are supposed to stay chaste. Only the first wife is supposed to be in sexual relations with the husband. The other wives are for the Celestial.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by pushka@Nov 2 2005, 06:40 PM

Thanks for replying Tao...yes I did realise that the same privelidge would be given to the 1st husband as would be given to the 1st wife under these circumstances...

I'm a little confused about the other bit in your previous post, about Emma being condemned (not using your words directly, just trying to use a word that conjures up the same meaning...hope it's the right one) if she didn't give him her permission...can you explain that a little further, and tell me if she would be?  This would follow that all wives/husbands refusing their partners the additional husband/wife would also be condemned...sort of makes their choice a bit of a farce doesn't it!

←

D&C 132:54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

That states pretty clearly that although Emma had Free Agency to deny Joseph permission to marry more wives...because she was wife #1...the alternaltive was that she would be "destroyed" if she exercised that agency. Whether that meant the physical destruction of Emma or a spiritual destruction (outer darkness?) I do not know.

The chapter summary states:

51—57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true;

That's sort of a soft way of phrasing it. One could argue that Emma was being threatened, but I suppose the opposing argument would be that she still had Free Agency.

My final point was that I think that the days of the Lord giving such direct counsel (making threats from the heavens) have been behind us for over a century. Generally the 20th Century Prophets have not mentioned these sorts of conversations with God...when asked about revelation, President Hinckley replied that it was a feeling he got...not actual words spoken by God.

So if our Prophet's revelations are no more than a "good feeling", the average LDS woman should expect no more than the same sort of revelation.

If God's behavior continues as it has over the last century, I think that means that God will not be threatening to destroy women if they refuse to allow their husbands to participate in polygamy. More likely, he will remain silent, or if he wants to "counsel" them, He will do it more subtly than with threats of destruction...He will probably just give them a "good feeling" about polygamy.

I think I am sort of repeating what I already said in the other post, but hopefully I was more clear this time :)

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Nov 2 2005, 07:03 PM

It's not really all that important is it?  The second wife and so on are supposed to stay chaste.  Only the first wife is supposed to be in sexual relations with the husband.  The other wives are for the Celestial.

←

But the Lord says this to Joseph Smith in D&C 132:

37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

He says this to justify polygamy to Joseph...isn't he commanding the same type of polygamy to Joseph?

[pushka]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+Nov 2 2005, 07:05 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-pushka@Nov 2 2005, 06:40 PM

I'm a little confused about the other bit in your previous post, about Emma being condemned (not using your words directly, just trying to use a word that conjures up the same meaning...hope it's the right one) if she didn't give him her permission...can you explain that a little further, and tell me if she would be?  This would follow that all wives/husbands refusing their partners the additional husband/wife would also be condemned...sort of makes their choice a bit of a farce doesn't it!

←

D&C 132:54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

That states pretty clearly that although Emma had Free Agency to deny Joseph permission to marry more wives...because she was wife #1...the alternaltive was that she would be "destroyed" if she exercised that agency. Whether that meant the physical destruction of Emma or a spiritual destruction (outer darkness?) I do not know.

The chapter summary states:

51—57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true;

That's sort of a soft way of phrasing it. One could argue that Emma was being threatened, but I suppose the opposing argument would be that she still had Free Agency.

I think I am sort of repeating what I already said in the other post, but hopefully I was more clear this time :)

←

Thanks again Tao...I suppose I was asking for the quotes from D&C which threatened Emma, so that I could see exactly what they said...

I must say, however, that the first quote, about Emma : D&C 132:54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

I just read to mean that she ought to stay with Joseph Smith, as her husband, and not marry anyone else? It doesn't say anything to me about accepting a polygamous marriage to him? unless the further scripture: 51—57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true; means that she must also allow Joseph to do as he pleases, without argument? Is that the way you're reading it? Or had the issue of polygamy already been mentioned before d&C 132:54?

I'm sorry to keep pressing this point, in view of your further comments regarding God not sending messages such as these any more, and just giving people a 'good feeling' about something or other, but I just like to be certain about why somebody has said what they have about something in the scriptures.

I'm sorry that you had to repeat some of your earlier post...that wasn't what I wanted you to have to do!!

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 1 2005, 07:55 PM

I don’t see why she couldn’t adjust to the idea that I have other work to do,

Ah, so THAT'S what they call it these days!

[StrawberryFields]

It's almost as though I can hear Ray and Flannan "licking their lips" as they consider having more then one wife. Would it be immoral if I were to do the same at the thought of having more then one husband?

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Nov 2 2005, 08:03 PM

It's not really all that important is it?  The second wife and so on are supposed to stay chaste.  Only the first wife is supposed to be in sexual relations with the husband.  The other wives are for the Celestial.

←

I hope I don't regret asking this ...what do you mean?

[Fiannan]

Strawberry Fields, if you and your husband are into having another man in the relationship then nothing is really stopping you. I read an article in my local newspaper about such a relationship (one woman, two men). Doesn't seem to be the biological thing though as most men I know would not be for this and hardly any cultures condone it. One wonders the underlying biological foundation that is involved here. If you ask most men, I believe, you would find that if their wife came home and said they'd had a weekend fling the man would be furious, unless she said it was with another woman. I have tried to figure that one out (lesbian sex is not even condemned in the Old Testament and in the New it is associated with not wanting to have children). Maybe it has to do with a man not wanting to raise another man's child -- no danger of that with another woman. I do know one LDS couple in which the woman seems a bit TOO positive to the "dream" of her husband having another wife if the Church allowed it again (a few other comments make me wonder on that one). Certainly gives one something to ponder if you are into issues relating to human psychology.

[Guest bizabra]

I found an interesting article on-line about polyandry and it's causes in Tibet.

http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/family.html

Just goes to show that there are many ways humans have solved the social and economic puzzles of each culture and environment they have to deal with.

In other words, THERE IS NO ONE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT! Human relationships are ALWAYS situational and culturally based.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by pushka@Nov 2 2005, 08:19 PM

I must say, however, that the first quote, about Emma : D&C 132:54  And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.  I just read to mean that she ought to stay with Joseph Smith, as her husband, and not marry anyone else? It doesn't say anything to me about accepting a polygamous marriage to him? 

I think you are right...I did read that wrong. Well, I guess that settles it then! Women have the right to stop their husbands from participating in polygamy and should never fear threats from God!

unless the further scripture: 51—57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true;  means that she must also allow Joseph to do as he pleases, without argument?  Is that the way you're reading it? 

That was the quote that stood out to me, and maybe it could imply that God commanded her to obey Joseph Smith in all things including polygamy...but that is debateable. I HOPE that she actually had a choice to agree to the arrangement.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Nov 3 2005, 11:57 AM

 

Strawberry Fields, if you and your husband are into having another man in the relationship then nothing is really stopping you.  I read an article in my local newspaper about such a relationship (one woman, two men).  Doesn't seem to be the biological thing though as most men I know would not be for this and hardly any cultures condone it.  One wonders the underlying biological foundation that is involved here. If you ask most men, I believe, you would find that if their wife came home and said they'd had a weekend fling the man would be furious, unless she said it was with another woman.  I have tried to figure that one out (lesbian sex is not even condemned in the Old Testament and in the New it is associated with not wanting to have children).  Maybe it has to do with a man not wanting to raise another man's child -- no danger of that with another woman.  I do know one LDS couple in which the woman seems a bit TOO positive to the "dream" of her husband having another wife if the Church allowed it again (a few other comments make me wonder on that one).  Certainly gives one something to ponder if you are into issues relating to human psychology. 

←

 

You sure skirted around the question of whether it would be immoral didn't you? B)

Yeah you say that most men would be furious but women are to take it lying

down?

What is good for the goose is not good for the gander and such?

This has not yet been command of us in our time, yet you and Ray seem to be chomping at the bit for it to happen.

Let me make myself clear one more time. IF polygamy becomes our way of life in the afterlife I will take it like any other wonderful woman will... after all I am the first.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Nov 3 2005, 07:47 AM

It's almost as though I can hear Ray and Flannan "licking their lips" as they consider having more then one wife. Would it be immoral if I were to do the same at the thought of having more then one husband? 

←

Instead of assuming that you truly understand me, it would probably be better for you to ask me what I think or how I feel so you be more sure about how I feel or what I think. And I say this because your perception of me hasn't been very good so far.

Or in other words, I am not "licking my lips", nor am I particularly looking forward to having more than one wife, because if you are an example of a wonderful woman, I would have my hands full with just one, just as I already have my hands full with the wonderful woman I already have.

And btw, if you take that as an insult, again, then you will probably believe I am insulting my wife, and I have absolutely no reason to do that.