The potential legalization of polygamy in Canada

[Guest DeborahC]

I would bet the murder rate and general over all corruption along with the repression of women would go up.

Please consider the FACT that polygamy does not necessarily equate repression of women any more than men holding the Priesthood equates repression of women.

Some women (myself included) prefer both.

There are MANY benefits to living in polygamy and if I were young again, I might seriously consider it.

Of course in some instances it has its problems, but then, so does monogamy!

[Guest DeborahC]

The problem is enforcement. When you're dealing with a cloistered community where cooperation with law enforcement is highly discouraged, it's difficult to even know the abuse is happening and it can remain hidden for years and even generations. The recent federal raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints in Texas highlights the difficulty of locating victims in this tight lipped community. What prompted the raid was a 16 year old girl who reported being physically and sexually abused.

I agree that the problem is the cloistered community (forced because of law, by the way) rather than polygamy itself.

I also would like to point out that the "16 year old girl" never was found .. and I believe that was simply a ploy used by the law to get into the compound and do their damage.

But that's my opinion.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

I agree that the problem is the cloistered community (forced because of law, by the way) rather than polygamy itself.

I think a community closing itself off for the purpose of defying the law is a problem.

Romans 13:1

[ Submit to Government ] Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

I also would like to point out that the "16 year old girl" never was found .. and I believe that was simply a ploy used by the law to get into the compound and do their damage.

But that's my opinion.

I'm going to give the government the benefit of the doubt on this one. There's a certain psychology about girls who have been raised in this environment, taught to distrust society, and impressed upon that the elders are the ultimate authority. Even if one of them garners the courage to break ranks, their upbringing will quickly reassert itself and they will relent in turning in their abuser. The mindset of these girls is not unlike that of a battered wife. I don't see the failure of this girl to come forward after the raid as a reason to suspect the motives of social services. I see it as an indictment of those who have frightened her into complete mental subjegation to her abusers rather than society.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Certainly. How can polygamy be viewed as moral or divinely warranted when our gender ration is nearly 50/50? It seems to me that a lot of men get left out in the cold and two classes of men are created; the alphas who marry several women, and the plebians who must sacrifice marriage, family, and intimacy to make this happen. It seems that in this zero sum game, there are a lot of losers.

That would be my first question.

Suzie, am I not going to get a response?

[Suzie]

Suzie, am I not going to get a response?

Sorry, I have been very busy.

How can polygamy be viewed as moral or divinely warranted when our gender ration is nearly 50/50? It seems to me that a lot of men get left out in the cold and two classes of men are created; the alphas who marry several women, and the plebians who must sacrifice marriage, family, and intimacy to make this happen. It seems that in this zero sum game, there are a lot of losers.

That would be my first question.

Are you a Catholic right? How do you see polygamy in the Old Testament? (just curious).

Just for your information, not every member of the Church lived Plural Marriage at the time of Joseph Smith, as I explained before it was something that was done within a certain circle and within certain privacy (secrecy actually).

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Are you a Catholic right? How do you see polygamy in the Old Testament? (just curious).

Because polygamy has never been practiced under the direction and blessing of God, even in scripture, its practice in the early LDS church remains without precident. God ordained marriage as a man and a woman, for this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. Jesus emphasizes this definition of marriage in his teachings as well. It's more than a little difficult to defend polygamy as a biblical practice.

Just for your information, not every member of the Church lived Plural Marriage at the time of Joseph Smith, as I explained before it was something that was done within a certain circle and within certain privacy (secrecy actually).

This only goes to further my point that polygamy was for a select few, the clique, the inner circle. It separated men into two classes and quite a few men were left without a chair when the music stopped. The more it's described, the more it seems like a man made system.

[Suzie]

Because polygamy has never been practiced under the direction and blessing of God

So are you saying Abraham, Jacob, etc practiced polygamy without God's sanction?

[Just_A_Guy]

Romans 13:1

[ Submit to Government ] Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

As a Catholic, I would think you'd be among the first to acknowledge that there are bounds to that counsel. How many times have members of your church practiced their religion in contravention of secular law--whether it be first-century Rome, seventeenth-century England, or mid-twentieth-century Vietnam?

I'm going to give the government the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Just as a historical footnote - the report originated with a Coloradan named Rosita Swinton, who was not FLDS and had never set foot in the compound. Judge Walther approved removing the FLDS children from their homes substantially on the grounds you describe--that by being a cloistered compound, the girls were inevitably going to grow up and be abused and the boys were inevitably going to grow up to be abusers. The Texas Supreme Court disagreed and ordered the children returned to their families.

It seems to me that a lot of men get left out in the cold and two classes of men are created; the alphas who marry several women, and the plebians who must sacrifice marriage, family, and intimacy to make this happen. It seems that in this zero sum game, there are a lot of losers.

You're certainly right, at least in a demographically stable society--we've all heard of the "lost boys" from the FLDS group.

Oddly, though, we don't seem to hear reports like this coming out of 19th century Utah. One explanation may be 19th century Utah benefited from a constant influx of new converts. If demographic trends of the era were similar to those of today (new female converts outnumbering new male converts by a hefty margin) - that could explain why it never became a major issue.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[Dravin]

Okay, I couldn't resist any more. I had to fix the title. Carry on.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

So are you saying Abraham, Jacob, etc practiced polygamy without God's sanction?

Absolutely. Abraham's taking of Hagar was not seen as an act of faith, but one of doubt, as he watched Sarah's womb grow slack with menopause. The fact that God made a nation out of Hagar's offspring confers no approval on Abraham's actions, but rather that God keeps his promises even when we falter on our end. God's plan was to make a great nation out of Abraham through Sarah and in a miraculous manner, that is, in her old age. He carried out that plan and even called Isaac the only son of Abraham, a repudiation of Ishmael's legitimacy as the rightful heir. In all this is implicit God's approval only of Abraham's marriage to Sarah.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

As a Catholic, I would think you'd be among the first to acknowledge that there are bounds to that counsel. How many times have members of your church practiced their religion in contravention of secular law--whether it be first-century Rome, seventeenth-century England, or mid-twentieth-century Vietnam?

I think the understanding is very clear to obey the laws of man except where they countermand the ordinances of God. This rarely happens and in the case where society upholds and enforces the biblical definition of marriage, I believe there is no credible grounds for defiance against the law.

Just as a historical footnote - the report originated with a Coloradan named Rosita Swinton, who was not FLDS and had never set foot in the compound. Judge Walther approved removing the FLDS children from their homes substantially on the grounds you describe--that by being a cloistered compound, the girls were inevitably going to grow up and be abused and the boys were inevitably going to grow up to be abusers. The Texas Supreme Court disagreed and ordered the children returned to their families.

I don't see how this throws a blanket of approval on what happened. It's clear that one judge was interested in protecting the children and was overruled.

You're certainly right, at least in a demographically stable society--we've all heard of the "lost boys" from the FLDS group.

It's the often untold story, the harsh reality of polygamy and the manifest unjustice it perpetrates of the unlucky.

Oddly, though, we don't seem to hear reports like this coming out of 19th century Utah. One explanation may be 19th century Utah benefited from a constant influx of new converts. If demographic trends of the era were similar to those of today (new female converts outnumbering new male converts by a hefty margin) - that could explain why it never became a major issue.

An imbalance like that is easily rectified by bringing in men from outside communities, but I don't believe this was the case. I believe the story of those men bumped out into the cold is unpopular and therefore untold. After all, if polygamy was a practice sanctioned by heaven, then who wants to countenance evidence to the contrary?

[Just_A_Guy]

I think the understanding is very clear to obey the laws of man except where they countermand the ordinances of God.

Agreed.

This rarely happens and in the case where society upholds and enforces the biblical definition of marriage, I believe there is no credible grounds for defiance against the law.

We believe otherwise, with regard to marriage. With regard to the law, though, I think we're more or less on the same page: to put it cynically, we should obey the law except when our religions tell us that it's really, really important that we disobey the law.

I don't see how this throws a blanket of approval on what happened. It's clear that one judge was interested in protecting the children and was overruled.

I'm not saying the FLDS are deserving of "approval"; I'm just saying that the constitutional guarantee of due process was not observed in the YFZ raid.

An imbalance like that is easily rectified by bringing in men from outside communities, but I don't believe this was the case.

Err . . . you mean "women", right?

I believe the story of those men bumped out into the cold is unpopular and therefore untold. After all, if polygamy was a practice sanctioned by heaven, then who wants to countenance evidence to the contrary?

Oh, there are people who have devoted entire lifetimes into exposing the seamier sides of Mormonism. I realize that the writing of history is never "done"; but it does seem curious that among all the sordid revelations of Mormonism's past--somehow, no one has been able to come up with any evidence for an "eliminate the extra males" regimen of the sort embraced by the FLDS, being practiced in 19th century Utah.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Oh, there are people who have devoted entire lifetimes into exposing the seamier sides of Mormonism. I realize that the writing of history is never "done"; but it does seem curious that among all the sordid revelations of Mormonism's past--somehow, no one has been able to come up with any evidence for an "eliminate the extra males" regimen of the sort embraced by the FLDS, being practiced in 19th century Utah.

It's easy to chalk up any criticism of the early LDS to persecution, and doing this to a fault only serves to blind the LDS to their own faults. Are their no criticisms that are warranted? Or is everything just explained away? I'm a rational, logical, and well educated person who believes that truth naturally rises to the surface. I don't have to read any actual accounts of these injustices perpetuated by the practice of polygamy because polygamy will intrinsically cause mating imbalances that result in injustice. Give me some credit here, I don't spend my valuable time studying biased articles and books devised to tear down the LDS faith because I have no animosity toward your faith.

I'm after the truth.

[Just_A_Guy]

My goodness, SaintMichael, I'm not remotely chalking it up to persecution. I'm just giving a general survey of the criticisms I've seen so far, and the ones that don't seem to have come up.

You have developed a hypothesis that polygamy in 19th-century Utah caused a gender imbalance. It's a logical one, but what I am suggesting is that the apparent lack of any empirical data to that effect may indicate that the hypothesis is somehow flawed.

When your hypothesis is called into question, you cannot explain the lack of supporting data by simply reaffirming that the data must be out there somewhere because your hypothesis is so transcendentally right.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

When your hypothesis is called into question, you cannot explain the lack of supporting data by simply reaffirming that the data must be out there somewhere because your hypothesis is so transcendentally right.

Actually, what I'm saying isn't that supporting data must be out there somewhere because I don't care. As I said, much of the compilation of this data done by your adversaries I'm not interested in because I'm not your adversary.

I'm drawing logical and natural effects of polygamy and the resulting injustice on a segregated community. The gender ratio at birth is nearly 1:1, with slightly more boys born than girls. The theory you proposed to create a greater gender imbalance among adults, that there was a greater influx of female converts, I cannot take at face value because of a lack of supporting precident that females convert to a new religion at a faster rate than males. Because males and females are so closely intertwined through family and marital connections, it's difficult to sustain such an imbalance. Put more simply, there won't be an instance of many females converting and trekking off without a proportionate number of males following.

And perhaps the larger point as to why I resist citing bodies of data is that I find greater truth in what is probable than in data which is compiled; often to confound the probable and work toward less than truthful human agendas.

[Dravin]

The gender ratio at birth is nearly 1:1, with slightly more boys born than girls.

Gender ratio at birth is irrelevant as it's an issue of gender ratio at marriageable ages in the population under discussion. Of course how do you know the gender ratio at birth is nearly 1:1? I claim it is 2:1 female to male. Don't throw data at me, it's suspect and I don't care about it.

I cannot take at face value because of a lack of supporting precident that females convert to a new religion at a faster rate than males.

The only way to provide precedent would be to provide data, which you don't care about.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Dravin

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

It's clear this discuss is now causing offense.

I digress.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm drawing logical and natural effects of polygamy and the resulting injustice on a segregated community. The gender ratio at birth is nearly 1:1, with slightly more boys born than girls. The theory you proposed to create a greater gender imbalance among adults, that there was a greater influx of female converts, I cannot take at face value because of a lack of supporting precident that females convert to a new religion at a faster rate than males. Because males and females are so closely intertwined through family and marital connections, it's difficult to sustain such an imbalance. Put more simply, there won't be an instance of many females converting and trekking off without a proportionate number of males following.

Perhaps, but remember--I said, "if current trends" were the case back then. Right now, there are about 1.3 females per male in the LDS Church. (Source)

And perhaps the larger point as to why I resist citing bodies of data is that I find greater truth in what is probable than in data which is compiled; often to confound the probable and work toward less than truthful human agendas.

Lies, darned lies, and statistics . . .

It's clear this discuss is now causing offense.

None taken, at least on my part.