Busting “The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy”


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Mike said:

I can think of a very straightforward reason that people would have issues with polygamy. One need only consider Warren Jeffs.

But those same people who look at Jeffs as a warning against polygamy, don't look at him as a warning against marriage generally?

Humans are pliable creatures; and largely the conclusions we draw about current events are the conclusions we were meant to draw by those who reported the events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But those same people who look at Jeffs as a warning against polygamy, don't look at him as a warning against marriage generally?

Humans are pliable creatures; and largely the conclusions we draw about current events are the conclusions we were meant to draw by those who reported the events.

No, those same people certainly don't look at him as a warning against marriage generally. But that's because he didn't marry in a general way, isn't it? And although reporting of events can impact the way you and I (and thousands) think, we are capable of parsing for accurate understanding. It isn't unreasonable for an objective observer to look at the results of Jeff's implementation of polygamy in the name of God and conclude that polygamy is generally not a Godly practice--or at least a Godly practice often practiced in an unGodly way.

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
19 minutes ago, Mike said:

I can think of a very straightforward reason that people would have issues with polygamy. One need only consider Warren Jeffs.

LOL, good point. Simple and direct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But those same people who look at Jeffs as a warning against polygamy, don't look at him as a warning against marriage generally?

How so?  I think Warren Jeffs is a great example of how polygamy could go wrong, but that doesn't inspire fear about marriage in general for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mike said:

It isn't unreasonable for an objective observer to look at the results of Jeff's implementation of polygamy in the name of God and conclude that polygamy is generally not a Godly practice--or at least a Godly practice often practiced in an unGodly way.

Sure; but I understood you as saying that Jeffs' practice is a per se argument against polygamy--however practiced--as being of godly origin.

The simple fact is, we don't see Jeffs as an abuser of marriage, because our life experience includes hundreds of happy, fulfilling, respectful, and equitable (and monogamous) marriages that worked well.  But most of us don't have much life experience with happy, fulfilling, respectful and equitable polygamous marriages; and so we are more won't to take bad actors as representatives of the whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

How so?  I think Warren Jeffs is a great example of how polygamy could go wrong, but that doesn't inspire fear about marriage in general for me. 

Sure; but again--why?

He's also a potential example of how religion could go wrong; or marriage; or parenthood, or family-owned businesses.  But we choose not to make that connection; because we directly interact with lots of religions and marriages and parents and small businesses that are making a positive contribution to society.

We are generally ignorant of polygamy and polygamists; and that makes us susceptible to manipulation by those with an agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Sure; but I understood you as saying that Jeffs' practice is a per se argument against polygamy--however practiced--as being of godly origin.

The simple fact is, we don't see Jeffs as an abuser of marriage, because our life experience includes hundreds of happy, fulfilling, respectful, and equitable (and monogamous) marriages that worked well.  But most of us don't have much life experience with happy, fulfilling, respectful and equitable polygamous marriages; and so we are more won't to take bad actors as representatives of the whole.

Yes, Jeffs' practice is perceived as a per se argument against polygamy as being of godly origin. This is because people believe that God does not institute situations in which innocent people are made subject to the whims of unrighteous dominion--and people perceive Jeffs' practice of polygamy as precisely that. 

We don't see Jeffs as an abuser of marriage because we typically think of marriage as *a* marriage, *one* marriage. I agree with your observation that we evaluate polygamy inductively. That's because inductive reasoning works--not always, but often enough that we rely upon it. Moreover, if I was in possession of first-hand factual evidence that polygamy made positive contributions to society in general and to individual women and children specifically, then I would perhaps write a book. I dare say that most people would offer similar testimonials, but most people are not in possession of first-hand positive experience with it, either.

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Mike said:

But just as it is valuable for you and I to understand one another, it's also valuable for us to understand why people who hate polygamy may feel the way they feel. Do you agree with me that it is valuable?

I do not think it is de facto valuable. It might be valuable.

That being said, I believe one would, indeed, need to be stupid to not understand from a western society perspective why polygamy is oft times hated. What I'm not sure is how someone hating or loving any given thing is related to the need for humility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

I do not think it is de facto valuable. It might be valuable.

That being said, I believe one would, indeed, need to be stupid to not understand from a western society perspective why polygamy is oft times hated. What I'm not sure is how someone hating or loving any given thing is related to the need for humility.

Help me understand what you mean by differentiating between valuable and de facto valuable. I could research it, but I prefer to know what *you* mean. Help me understand how you interpreted something I said to mean I perceived a relationship between hating polygamy and needing to be humble. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Mike said:

No, those same people certainly don't look at him as a warning against marriage generally. But that's because he didn't marry in a general way, isn't it? And although reporting of events can impact the way you and I (and thousands) think, we are capable of parsing for accurate understanding. It isn't unreasonable for an objective observer to look at the results of Jeff's implementation of polygamy in the name of God and conclude that polygamy is generally not a Godly practice--or at least a Godly practice often practiced in an unGodly way.

I think this misses the point (haven't read all the replies yet).

Compare like to like. Let's say, for example, that marriage was outlawed. Then some group practiced it anyhow but abused it and forced it and took underage brides and what-have-you (all monogamously). Would that be an argument against marriage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mike said:

Help me understand what you mean by differentiating between valuable and de facto valuable. I could research it, but I prefer to know what *you* mean.

I mean several things. 1. Some views are not worth understanding. 2. It may not be possible to really understand anyone else's view. 3. God's view is the only one that we really need to understand. 4. God's view is the only "other" view we truly can come to understand because of the Holy Spirit. 5. Not understanding another's view fully, or even at all, does not mean we cannot, in response, boldly state God's view as truth.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think this misses the point (haven't read all the replies yet).

Compare like to like. Let's say, for example, that marriage was outlawed. Then some group practiced it anyhow but abused it and forced it and took underage brides and what-have-you (all monogamously). Would that be an argument against marriage?

Let's see if I understand you. Marriage is illegal. A group practices it, and abuses it. Yes, most reasonable people would agree that a group's practice of an illegal thing resulting in harm to people would serve as evidence that the illegal thing should remain illegal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mike said:

Help me understand how you interpreted something I said to mean I perceived a relationship between hating polygamy and needing to be humble. 

I believe that the acceptance of polygamy or not is a litmus test for humility in the gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I believe that the acceptance of polygamy or not is a litmus test for humility in the gospel.

I don't believe what you believe in this regard. 

Quote

I mean several things. 1. Some views are not worth understanding. 2. It may not be possible to really understand anyone else's view. 3. God's view is the only one that we really need to understand. 4. God's view is the only "other" view we truly can come to understand because of the Holy Spirit. 5. Not understanding another's view fully, or even at all, does not mean we cannot, in response, boldly state God's view as truth.

I disagree with you on #1. I agree on #2, but it's still worth my while to try. 

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mike said:

Let's see if I understand you. Marriage is illegal. A group practices it, and abuses it. Yes, most reasonable people would agree that a group's practice of an illegal thing resulting in harm to people would serve as evidence that the illegal thing should remain illegal. 

Sure. But would that perception be valid? I believe that is the point. The argument JaG is making, as I see it, is that this perception, based on Warran Jeffs and his cronies, concerning the validity of polygamy is invalid. Understanding this doesn't argue FOR polygamy or the legalization of it either. But a person or group abusing something does not prove that thing, itself, evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mike said:

I don't believe what you believe in this regard. 

Clearly.

But I'll explain myself further anyhow.

It's a matter of committing to an "if". Being willing to submit to whatsoever thing the Lord sees fit to inflict upon us. It's not about accepting polygamy directly. It's about accepting ANYTHING that the Lord commands, suggests, wills, or what-have-you. Anything. Polygamy becomes a litmus test simply by being a known challenge. There are others, of course. But polygamy is a big one.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mike said:

@The Folk Prophet I want to communicate with you, but you're going to fast for me to do the effort justice. How about if we make this more like a dialogue, and less like whack-a-mole. :)

 

Come now. That's the beauty of forum communication. ;) Take your time and address the posts in your own time. They're not going anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Come now. That's the beauty of forum communication. ;) Take your time and address the posts in your own time. They're not going anywhere.

Hmmm, I disagree with you about the beauty. What I've observed of forum communication is a lot of ugliness. The beauty of communication is rare by comparison. Communication doesn't happen the way you're treating me at the moment in spite of my request to you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
11 minutes ago, Mike said:

What I've observed of forum communication is a lot of ugliness. 

I think it's important to remember that there is a person on the other side of the computer. You won't like everyone, and that's fine. That's life. But if you think it's "ugly" all the time, than perhaps 1) you are contributing to it being "ugly" and need to change personally  or 2) online communication might not be for you. And that's okay, it's nothing personal.

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mike said:

Communication doesn't happen the way you're treating me at the moment in spite of my request to you. 

Treating you?

I'm...answering questions you've asked... I guess I didn't realize that was...   rude?

I'm not sure what you're reading into things here. I've been talking. You know. Answering questions. Asking them sometimes. Explaining my views. I'm not sure how I'm "treating you".

As it now strikes me that any communication that isn't strictly on your terms will be offensive I will...

...actually...I'll keep doing the same exact thing, because there's nothing wrong with it at all. Your problems with the way I communicate are, frankly, yours. I've been entirely civil to you and you keep taking offense. If you can't deal with it then bow out. No one's forcing you to type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think it's important to remember that there is a person on the other side of the computer. You won't like everyone, and that's fine. That's life. But if you think it's "ugly" all the time, than perhaps 1) you are contributing to it being "ugly" and need to change personally  or 2) online communication might not be for you. And that's okay, it's nothing personal.

Thanks for the tips. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
3 minutes ago, Mike said:

Thanks for the tips. 

Anytime my friend. I wasn't saying don't hang around here, for the record. I like your posts. Always an interesting perspective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Treating you?

I'm...answering questions you've asked... I guess I didn't realize that was...   rude?

I'm not sure what you're reading into things here. I've been talking. You know. Answering questions. Asking them sometimes. Explaining my views. I'm not sure how I'm "treating you".

As it now strikes me that any communication that isn't strictly on your terms will be offensive I will...

...actually...I'll keep doing the same exact thing, because there's nothing wrong with it at all. Your problems with the way I communicate are, frankly, yours. I've been entirely civil to you and you keep taking offense. If you can't deal with it then bow out. No one's forcing you to type.

Treating me only despite my one request. You're using words that I didn't use, and drawing conclusions that I didn't give you reason to draw. But that's OK because like you say, you'll keep doing the same exact thing. 

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Sure. But would that perception be valid? I believe that is the point. The argument JaG is making, as I see it, is that this perception, based on Warran Jeffs and his cronies, concerning the validity of polygamy is invalid. Understanding this doesn't argue FOR polygamy or the legalization of it either. But a person or group abusing something does not prove that thing, itself, evil.

Right; I'm pointing out that we really have no idea whether Jeffs is a statistically representative sample of folks who practice polygamy, or marriage, or parenthood, or business ownership, or right-handedness, or toothbrushing, or any other habit that Jeffs shares in common with a broader group of people.  Just because a nickel is a coin, does not mean all coins are worth five cents.

@Mike I agree that people think God wouldn't sanction a situation that may breed powerlessness-but again, monogamous marriage can do the same thing; as can mere parenthood (I work in the child welfare system). So the logic does have issues.  I do agree with you that more positive anecdotal/statistical information about polygamy would be helpful; but such evidence does exist--we just aren't exposed to it much, because it tends not to reach mainstream media outlets.  Come up to Salt Lake's Capitol Hill when the legislature is in session and you'll probably find a number of polygamist protestors (even women) who would be only too happy to tell you how well their family structure works for them.  Go into the Islamic block of nations, and you'll hear much the same thing.

Our opinions are shaped by the people we listen to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share