Some Russian Leaders Propose Legalizing Polygamy.

[Aristotle]

Edited by Aristotle

[shanstress70]

Is marriage about sex? No, it's not; it may involve sex, just as some polygamous marriages did, but that is not the only reason for it. I don't think it was just about sex for Abraham or anyone else in the Bible, nor was it for the early Church. Marriage is much more than sex, and it was about much more in the early LDS Church.

I would say that marriage is about sex, in most cases. Most marriages will fail if there is no sex. That's what sets my relationship with my husband apart from my friendship with other males.

What was the point of it, if it wasn't about sex?

Anyone who thinks it was miserable treatment for the women involved needs to do some reading.

I can find LOTS of reading material that says it was miserable treatment for the women involved!

[Aristotle]

Edited by Aristotle

[shanstress70]

Shanstress, polygamy has been outlawed in the Church; therefore, I sustain Church doctrine, and I follow God.

Yes, as long as he doesn't call for it again. Then would you follow God?

[Outshined]

I would say that marriage is about sex, in most cases. Most marriages will fail if there is no sex. That's what sets my relationship with my husband apart from my friendship with other males.

What was the point of it, if it wasn't about sex?

Marriage isn't just about sex; come on, it's a relatively small part. What was it about when it was done n the Bible? What do you feel the God was doing with it (if you believe the Bible, that is).

I can find LOTS of reading material that says it was miserable treatment for the women involved!

And lots that says it wasn't...written by the women involved.

<div class='quotemain'>

Shanstress, polygamy has been outlawed in the Church; therefore, I sustain Church doctrine, and I follow God.

Yes, as long as he doesn't call for it again. Then would you follow God?

I believe she has said she would not.

[Aristotle]

Edited by Aristotle

[shanstress70]

Marriage isn't just about sex; come on, it's a relatively small part. What was it about when it was done n the Bible? What do you feel the God was doing with it (if you believe the Bible, that is).

I don't believe everything that is written in the Bible. I think it has serious flaws. It was written by man, after all.

But IF God commanded it in the Bible, the only reason I can think of for it is to populate certain areas more quickly.

And no, marriage isn't just about sex. But I can't think of any other reason for polygamy. If it was celibate polygamy, why even bother? If it was for childcare, hire a nanny. If it was for cleaning house, hire a maid.

[Outshined]

Why would you speak mostly of me, when it is the majority of the sisters who have spoken openly against practicing poygamy?

You mean the majority here, not in the Church. Big difference.

[shanstress70]

<div class='quotemain'>

And I am speaking mostly of Ari, but there are a few other women on this board who basically say the same thing... that they would not allow their husbands to take other wives. Or that they would not allow 'hanky-panky'. Polygamy isn't about taking care of a neighbor lady who has been widowed... it's about sex!

Why would you speak mostly of me, when it is the majority of the sisters who have spoken openly against practicing poygamy? Have I said anything specifically in regard to polygamy/sex?

If you didn't, I apologize. I thought you did, but I'm not going back 9 pages to find it. You did say this, "Fact: The latter-day women of the Church will never allow polygamy to be practiced." I say they will not have a say-so in the matter.

[Outshined]

I don't believe everything that is written in the Bible. I think it has serious flaws. It was written by man, after all.

But IF God commanded it in the Bible, the only reason I can think of for it is to populate certain areas more quickly.

And no, marriage isn't just about sex. But I can't think of any other reason for polygamy. If it was celibate polygamy, why even bother? If it was for childcare, hire a nanny. If it was for cleaning house, hire a maid.

Good question. Why was Joseph Smith sealed to women he never married, and why is there no evidence that he had sex with those plural wives? Perhaps he was just following God's orders.

EDIT: And what about impotent men; would that exclude them from the doctrine?

And speaking of misery, I would think it would be horrible to be married to more than one woman. Sheesh!

[Aristotle]

Edited by Aristotle

[shanstress70]

Aristotle is a he, not a she.

This is annoying, at best. IMO, it is dumb to have a tag-team in posting. If you don't want us to get confused as to whether it's Mr or Mrs, get another name. If you insist on doing this, get over it when we confuse you!

Good question. Why was Joseph Smith sealed to women he never married, and why is there no evidence that he had sex with those plural wives? Perhaps he was just following God's orders.

I'm the wrong person to ask these questions. I believe that he did have sex with his other wives, or at least some of them. If he married some that he did not have sex with, perhaps it was so that people like you would say exactly this! :)

[Amphiblitz]

And speaking of misery, I would think it would be horrible to be married to more than one woman. Sheesh!

Amen to that! Sometimes I think it is forgotten who REALLY gets the short end of the stick in polygamy.

[Outshined]

Aristotle is a he, not a she.

If that bothers you, get seperate accounts and stop playing name games. Otherwise, get used to being called by the name you post under.

The brethren cannot comprehend what polygamy feels like until they have been commanded to accept a "brother husband".

Nor can you, having been under no such commandment.

Sisters have expressed in their own words [which I have read] of the sorrow/hurt/humiliation in being forced to practice polygamy. .

And yet the strongest defenders were the sisters themselves. Your problem is that your projecting your personal feelings on the situation, with no regard to it being of God.

It is the general concensus of the sisters in this forum that they oppose the practice of polygamy.

The ones who have answered, anyway. And I'll repeat that it only means that you place your personal desires above God's word.

The majority of the sisters I have spoken with in the Church are very outspoken in their opposition to practicing polygamy. Likewise, the majority of the women in this forum oppose practicing polygamy.

See above.

The only way we would practice polygamy is if Jesus Christ personally commanded us to, which is highly unlikely!

Again, a supposed Latter-day Saint who admits that she only follows the prophet when it fits her own desires. Nice.

[Fiannan]

Again, I feel that is is important to note that polygamy is not for everyone. It takes certain types of individuals to sidestep the norm.

To illustrate this, I would like to use the homeschool movement as an example of what I am getting at. Most people in the Church are somewhat more individualistic but, like non-Mormons, feel comfortable within the norms of whatever society they live in. Therefore most Mormons send their kids to government schools because that's just what you do. Sure some would like to homeschool, but problems might stand in their way, but on the average LDS people feel they can trust public institutions. These conformists are not good candidates for living out of the norm in the least.

Then there are the super individualistic Mormons. These can be highly active members but still go to a rap concert or hippie festival on the weekend -- or even spend the weekend at a nude resort. Maybe they ride Harleys or look like a Billie Bob redneck. Many homeschool their kids for fear that American schools put education second and popularity and consumerism first. But they are LDS and are far into the individualistic scale. Most of these people would probably be open to a polygamist lifestyle.

Then there are your homeschool type people. These people can belong to the above group or be far right in attitudes. They could not care less what the average person thinks. Yes, some of these are the people who get swept into polygamist groups through intellectual investigation of the issue anyway. These people teach their own children, see government as nothing more than a necessary evil and could not care less about general norms. These are people who often have a flag in the front yard, but would take junior behind the woodshed if he even dared speculate in joining the army and fighting FOR this government. Many, if not most, would be open to polygamist lifestyles.

So if you can imagine the Church as a circle and the perifieral areas representing people who just aren't in the norm the core group would probably not feel comfortable stepping out of a middle-class, Protestant norm. However, a significant number of people would -- and that's the group that WILL welcome it when it comes back.

[Aristotle]

Edited by Aristotle

[Outshined]

I'm the wrong person to ask these questions. I believe that he did have sex with his other wives, or at least some of them. If he married some that he did not have sex with, perhaps it was so that people like you would say exactly this! :)

You know, I got to thnking; what happened with the plural marriages when it was banned? Were they considered divorced? What happened to the sisters who had been in a marriage for many years and were suddenly considered single? How did these people feel about having their marriages suddenly declared void?

Makes you think...

Again, I feel that is is important to note that polygamy is not for everyone. It takes certain types of individuals to sidestep the norm.

To illustrate this, I would like to use the homeschool movement as an example of what I am getting at. Most people in the Church are somewhat more individualistic but, like non-Mormons, feel comfortable within the norms of whatever society they live in. Therefore most Mormons send their kids to government schools because that's just what you do. Sure some would like to homeschool, but problems might stand in their way, but on the average LDS people feel they can trust public institutions. These conformists are not good candidates for living out of the norm in the least.

Then there are the super individualistic Mormons. These can be highly active members but still go to a rap concert or hippie festival on the weekend -- or even spend the weekend at a nude resort. Maybe they ride Harleys or look like a Billie Bob redneck. Many homeschool their kids for fear that American schools put education second and popularity and consumerism first. But they are LDS and are far into the individualistic scale. Most of these people would probably be open to a polygamist lifestyle.

Then there are your homeschool type people. These people can belong to the above group or be far right in attitudes. They could not care less what the average person thinks. Yes, some of these are the people who get swept into polygamist groups through intellectual investigation of the issue anyway. These people teach their own children, see government as nothing more than a necessary evil and could not care less about general norms. These are people who often have a flag in the front yard, but would take junior behind the woodshed if he even dared speculate in joining the army and fighting FOR this government. Many, if not most, would be open to polygamist lifestyles.

So if you can imagine the Church as a circle and the perifieral areas representing people who just aren't in the norm the core group would probably not feel comfortable stepping out of a middle-class, Protestant norm. However, a significant number of people would -- and that's the group that WILL welcome it when it comes back.

Good post. You're probably right about that.

[Fiannan]

Didn't the proclaimation merely urge members to stop taking NEW wives?

From what I understand of the period it took a while for members to stop taking more wives. So if the Church had the same attitude towards that (kinda analogous to the US government's attitude towards illegal immigration -- aw shucks, stop running across the border) then I really doubt 2nd. and 3rd. wives were suddenly thrust into the singles program.

[Outshined]

Didn't the proclaimation merely urge members to stop taking NEW wives?

From what I understand of the period it took a while for members to stop taking more wives. So if the Church had the same attitude towards that (kinda analogous to the US government's attitude towards illegal immigration -- aw shucks, stop running across the border) then I really doubt 2nd. and 3rd. wives were suddenly thrust into the singles program.

That's good to hear; I can't imagine how hard that would be after years of marriage, while you still have feelings for your spouse.

[Aristotle]

Edited by Aristotle

[Outshined]

False! No game playing here...as I explained to shanstress, Aristotle is a masculine name, not feminine; therefore, references to Aristotle as a "she" are innacurate. Aristotle is my husband's registered name in this forum, and we are only allowed one account, which is why I distinguish myself as Mrs. A, not "Ari".

Get used to being called by your screen name, whether you consider it "masculine" or not.

False! As a woman, I would understand what is demeaning to women.

False! You have never lived under such a system, and so are bound by your imagination. You have no more insight on it than any man, and it was not "demeaning".

False! The sisters themselves, are the strongest opponents of polygamy. Latter-day sisters are not intimidated into accepting such a practice. Polygamy is not of God; therefore, sisters are not obliged to accept or support polygamy.

Use all the excalamation points you want; it doesn't make you right. Read once in a while; the sisters were some of the strongest defenders. Just because you have a problem with it does not change history. And you don't speak for everyone; only yourself.

Calling our prophet a liar only gives credence to Snow's theory that you are not really LDS.

False! The ones who have not answered are a minority. And you do not know me to judge what I place as my own personal desires regarding God or His word. (Incidentally, God revealed to man to cease practicing polygamy.)

You have made it clear that you do not believe that it was of God. His word says that it was, as do His prophets, yet you call them all liars. You clearly place your personal desires above God.

False! I am an admitted Latter-day Saint who professes to follow God, not man.

You call the prophet a liar, and God in the process. I know what you profess to be, and what you say here; they are not the same.

[Fiannan]

I was once in an argument with a feminist at my campus and at one point she yelled "Well, I'm a lesbian -- what do you think of that?" I responded that I understood because I often felt like I'm really a lesbian trapped in a man's body. She got red in the face and all the people surrounding us were roaring in laughter.

I guess my point is that I don't have two viewpoints expressed under one screen name -- just how confusing would that be? I mean maybe some people would believe it when I said I was two different people or maybe they would think I had some sort of multiple personality thing.

Couldn't you use the name Aristotle1 and Aristotle2? Maybe AristotleXX and AristotleXY? Or maybe Mrs. Aristotle and Mr. Aristotle?

I am not trying to dis you here Ari, just making a suggestion.

[Outshined]

Aristotle says polygamy was not of God. From President Gordon B. Hinckley:

To many people Mormonism has meant one thing only—polygamy. This has been the subject of lurid tales in all parts of the world. Once such stories were extremely popular. But as the facts have come to be known, such writings have largely disappeared.

The truth of the matter is this: Mormonism claims to be a restoration of God's work in all previous dispensations. The Old Testament teaches that the patriarchs—those men favored of God in ancient times—had more than one wife under divine sanction. In the course of the development of the Church in the nineteenth century, it was revealed to the leader of the Church that such a practice of marriage again should be entered into.

The announcement of this doctrine was a severe shock. Most of the converts to Mormonism were of Puritan New England stock. Shortly after Brigham Young heard of the doctrine he saw a funeral cortege passing down the street, and he is reported to have said that he would gladly trade places with the man in the coffin rather than face this doctrine.

Nevertheless, the leaders of the Church accepted it as a commandment from God. It was not an easy thing to do. Only those whose characters were of the highest, and who had proved themselves capable of maintaining more than one family, were permitted so to marry. Never at any time were more than a small percentage of the families of the Church polygamous. The practice was regarded strictly as a religious principle.

In the late Eighties, Congress passed various measures prohibiting the practice, and when the Supreme Court declared the law constitutional, the Church indicated its willingness to comply. Consistently it could do nothing else in view of its basic teaching on the necessity for obedience to the law of the land. That was in 1890. (What of the Mormons? pamphlet, pp. 10-11.)

Tell me he's wrong...

[Aristotle]

Edited by Aristotle

[Ray]

To understand Aristotle, or Mrs. A, it helps to read each and every word while trying to understand exactly what she means, which is pretty much what anyone should do when trying to understand anyone else.

For instance, Mrs. A. stated that:

"Latter-day sisters are not intimidated into accepting such a practice. Polygamy [as of now, in this day in age] is not of God; therefore, sisters [today] are not obliged to accept or support polygamy."

Hopefully it is now clear that Mrs. A. is speaking the truth, and why she keeps getting offended when people claim she said something she did not mean when she spoke.