Polygamy... yay?

[dong]

First, I'll state that we are presuming a certain standard of relationship to mean meaningful and cooperative attachment (for want of a better phrase). There is also this ideal of permanence or longetivity, which I argue is not a necessary value but rather one dependent on outlook (e.g. my outlook is that all due effort given one should let relationships run their course as opposed to subscribe to delusions).

Without talking about the religious aspect, polygamy can work, but I would claim that with humans in general, as a rule, it would be extremely difficult. I am aware that certain cultures may allow and advocate it but this is usually in the case of prescriptive societies where one sex is made subservient to the other, or one class of people etc. etc. If we were to assume autonomy and individualism, and the cultural practices of relationships today, then monogamy is obviously the most stable relationship format to follow.

That's all old hat though- what I'm claiming is that monogamy is the most stable all round. Why? Because I'd like to (tentatively) suggest that our notion of a relationship encompasses the nexus between the consideration of the self and that of another. In terms of identity, being involved in a reciprocal relationship does involve a certain sense of posessiveness regardless of how this happens. Attachment accompanies desire (you'd know what I mean Todd), and so in a polygamous/polyamorous setting, one would expect the compromises made to be greater.

That said, I do personally know a polyamorous trio, and from what I can understand, at this point in time, it seems to be the best option. As to if it would last or whether tensions wouldn't inevitably break up, I cannot be sure.

 

[palefrost]

I'm sorry, but its all about the sex and the power. I'm tired of being told its not. That's cool if everyone is in agreement and thats how they want to roll. Where i have the problem is when you program it into a young child as the way of life and call it religion. That's always been my beef with any region though.

 

[LyricB]

Well put, palefrost. I think the polygamy we're talking about it legions different from the polygamy that is programmed into young girls in those cults.

 

[kelkat]

This goes to the debate of what is a marriage. Historically, marriage has been between one man and one woman. Historically, those societies that have moved from this (Romans and greeks) have fallen. There is something to the structure that tradition brings. It's not a religious thing, it's a tradition thing. That's why the structure crosses denominations and religions. There are very few groups who accept this as the natural order of things.

 

[dong]

I cannot possibly cover everything to be said here

This goes to the debate of what is a marriage. Historically, marriage has been between one man and one woman. Historically, those societies that have moved from this (Romans and greeks) have fallen. There is something to the structure that tradition brings. It's not a religious thing, it's a tradition thing. That's why the structure crosses denominations and religions. There are very few groups who accept this as the natural order of things.

I'be been badgering you on other threads in other sections, but I thought I'd do it here too as I haven't engaged you yet on the roots of your beliefs

But first!

Historically, those societies that have moved from this (Romans and greeks) have fallen.

:wtf: That has to be the non-sequitur of the day...if you even purported to be rational in the first place. First, the Romans conquered the Greeks. Secondly, the Romans for the most part practiced monogamy (complete with rituals and legal divorce). If anything, their inconsistency lay in the religion. And their primary cause of collapse was that they became fragmented and extended their borders so far that the integrity of their defense and military infrastructure was severely compromised. Add the typical inherent political bickering, infighting, fall of the republic, and the social upheaval that accompanied Constantine and bang, there go the Turks. IMO that doesn't have a whole lot to do with "failure to adhere to the ideal of marriage between a man and a woman".

So far I've seen that you have a strong support for the stability of tradition, as well as presenting a unifocally traditional Christian perspective. When it comes to a discussion on what marriage is, your perspective is therefore limited to the Christian definition, which thereby might restrict the import of your commentary on this thead because we are not dealing solely with Christian precepts. i.e. you're entitled to your beliefs but in rigidly subscribing to a single framework you necessarily limit yourself.

I can appreciate that people desire structure. But I'm going to contend that adherence to tradition is far more harmful than it is good, especially when traditions are based on misconceptions. We cannot assume that the knowledge we have is complete and even if you presume revelation from a perfect God, we can only deal with interpretations of such, and those are invariably flawed. Historically, the original concepts that seem so fanatically argued upon but are only peripherally related to the actual central tenets of the one holy, apostolic catholic church, were those that borne from a completely different context. Times change, and their meaning becomes distorted. In the end, the traditions you support will be as empty as the debates on what rules to impose and which group of people to persecute next. As you say, themes and central concerns remain common between denominations. Due to the awareness of changing times and the subjective nature of interpretation, central doctrine is constantly reformed and reviewed and has been ever since scholars in the 1st century AD.

At this point, I would like to raise a theological quibble. I presume that faith is different from religion, in that religion is the practice of a faith. That religion is institutionalised such that it is practiced by many in one manner (to a certain extent) means that it is governed by traditions. Therefore I really don't know if your statement "it's not a religious thing, it's a tradition thing" has any meaning. I already explained the active process of review and reform behind the doctrine common to all denominations of the one religion anyhow.

As for the actual topic at hand, socially and behaviorally, we have been structured for quite a while such that monogamy is the most stable and satisfactory type of relationship here. I have a problem with your implying that this is in any way "natural" though, not least because by our current understanding of what "natural" entails, it seems that this really isn't the case. That only goes back to highlighting the distortion of our beliefs and behaviors away from the parameters of our biological existence...which is in turn why we need to constantly examine our beliefs and traditions!

If you'd be so kind as to explain what you mean by "natural order of things", we could begin a discussion on the problems of appealing to nature. I'll start by saying you presume too much. But maybe I might have to begin a new thread on that one.

 

[LyricB]

Dong, you make my head hurt sometimes. In a good way, of course, but still....

 

[sarah]

Mine too. lol

 

[hokeshel]

Funny you should ask, my husband left me on Mother's Day because I wouldn't agree to polygamy. Polygamy should ONLY be done when all parties agree ahead of time, not surprsing someone with it later on. I also think that families who spring it on their children after the children have only known monogamy can do a great deal of harm. But, if you want to do it, and you are honest with your mates and you will protect your children from the public ostersization then go for it. But, most of the time, I think people want to do this for the kink, the fantasy, not because of any need or religeous belief. Luckily, most people know the fantasy isn't worth it.

 

[dong]

Damn that's harsh...I do agree with your post wholeheartedly. In fact, in any kind of relationship, I was under the impression that openess and honesty were very valuable.

Funnily enough, the only polygamous/polyamorous people I know are actually in a stable 3 way relationship- it took a little adjustment as it was based on some needs, but as far as I could tell, the kink part was probably the last thing on each one of their minds. In terms of today's social interaction, it is harder to maintain though.

 

[mtatum4496]

Moved to Religion and Philosophy since polygamy has a religious undertones.

Well said.

My only other issue with polyamy is the fact that a lot of polygamist families are on welfare and recieve other forms of social services. If you have multiple wives with kids between them, you need to raise them without the help of the state. Taxpayers who don't agree with polygamy should not have to subsidize them.

I think the perception these days of polygamous families has been shaped greatly by the practice of polygamy under Brigham Young in the faction of the Latter Day Saint movement that followed him after Joseph Smith, Jr.s death and adopted it as a religious tenet officially in 1852 (althought these was experimentation reaching well into the 1830's)

Plural marriage as practiced by the Brighamites required that a man be "called" to have more than one wife and that the elder (or first) wife had to giver her consent before the plural marriage could take place. This seems equitable on the surface, but you have to understand that in the developing eschatology among the Brighamites, the man had the responsibility of calling forth his wife from the grave at the time of resurrection. If a man wanted a plural wife and his first wife objected, he could simply tell her that he would not call her forth in the resurrection, and she would be coerced into abiding by his wishes.

The Edmund Tucker bill banning polygamy was made into law in 1862, if I recall correctly. The Brighamites used every legal appeal at their disposal, finally running out of appeals in 1887. In 1890, the US government disincorporated the church and seized its assets. Shortly thereafter, the Brighamite church officially ceased the practice of plural marriage.

Around 1887, the then president of the Brighamites, John Taylor, was said to have called together a group of men and ordained them to continue the practice of plural marriage, should the church ever abandon the practice. Taylor died soon after and the ban on polygamy was issued by his successor in office, Wilford Woodruff.

In the 20th century, a number of polygamous churches formed. Unlike the Brighamites in the 19th century, these new groups operated under the radar of both the legal system and the church administration. One group eventually came together as the Short Creek group, which evolved into the group led by Waren Jeffs today - the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

This group practices what they call "the law of placing" - that is, the prophet president of the church tells you who you will be married to; he also has the power to take the wives and children away and assign them to another man if one is found to be in transgression. What is coming to light now is that underage girls have been forced into marriages.

It is groups that want to stay below the radar and still have access to the Mormon temples for religious purposes that often end up with women applying for welfare in order to feed the kids. But not all plural marriage groups operate that way.

Other plural marriage groups that also trace their heritage back to John Taylor do things differently - they do not have an ecclestical authority who decides who will be married to whom, and they do not perform plural marriages for anyone unless both parties are at least 18 (in some cases, 21). And,the husband and the plural wife must demonstrate the ability to be able to be self-supporting in their extended family unit. These groups tend to discourage being on the government dole.

Having said all this, I can't understand why on earth anyone would enter a plural marriage situation. I reject the religious underpinningsof the practice, and my temperment is such that I can only handle one intimate relationship at a time.

 

[dong]

Thanks for the post, mtatum, very informative

I do think that cases of successful equitable plural marriages are rare, but they can exist. Currently I'm wondering where monogamy would fit in terms of a nature versus nurture debate. I suspect that we are not necessarily geared towards either but it is rather the treatment of various aspects of the nature side of things that result in much of culture today being monogamously oriented. This is not the same as saying that it's entirely a cultural construct, though!

 

[hokeshel]

The LDS church introduced polygamy as a temoporary action by only those who could afford to add to their family. It was done because of the women greatly outnumbered men in the church in those days. The church was new and small and it was done for preservation of the church by population. The United States president didn't even protect them from an exterminaiton order on "Mormons" by Missouri Gov. Boggs so, it was imperative the members populate. It was only meant to get thru this difficult time. Most christians believe that polygamy is wrong but, isn't incest wrong? Of course it is. But, What about Adam and Eve's children? They were incestual out of necessity. Polygamy was a necessity within the LDS church. I see them as very similar.
The most important thing to understand when discussing polygamy within the LDS church is that the Church of latter Day Saints (mormons) is a completely different religeon than the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints. The fundamentalists practice polygamy to this day. That is there belief and while I take issue with all of the forced polygamy and abuse, the actual act of polygamy is theirs to practice freely, as long as it is only between consenting adults, imo. Often, both churches are referred to as Mormons or LDS. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints does not believe in polygamy. It was done honestly and openly and when the necessity was over, it was over. One of the main reasons for the fundamentalist church was that some believed polygamy was to remain. Two different religeons, two differnet beliefs. I just wanted to clear that up.

 

[mtatum4496]

The LDS church introduced polygamy as a temoporary action by only those who could afford to add to their family. It was done because of the women greatly outnumbered men in the church in those days. The church was new and small and it was done for preservation of the church by population. The United States president didn't even protect them from an exterminaiton order on "Mormons" by Missouri Gov. Boggs so, it was imperative the members populate. It was only meant to get thru this difficult time. Most christians believe that polygamy is wrong but, isn't incest wrong? Of course it is. But, What about Adam and Eve's children? They were incestual out of necessity. Polygamy was a necessity within the LDS church. I see them as very similar.
The most important thing to understand when discussing polygamy within the LDS church is that the Church of latter Day Saints (mormons) is a completely different religeon than the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints. The fundamentalists practice polygamy to this day. That is there belief and while I take issue with all of the forced polygamy and abuse, the actual act of polygamy is theirs to practice freely, as long as it is only between consenting adults, imo. Often, both churches are referred to as Mormons or LDS. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints does not believe in polygamy. It was done honestly and openly and when the necessity was over, it was over. One of the main reasons for the fundamentalist church was that some believed polygamy was to remain. Two different religeons, two differnet beliefs. I just wanted to clear that up.

Part of the ongoing issue is that many people apply the term "Mormon" to any denomination that accepts the Book of Mormon as scripture. Given that there are over fifty functioning Latter Day Saint denominations in the US alone today, that makes about as much sense as calling everyone who uses the Bible as scripture by the moniker of "Baptist".

A number of the denominations that do not trace their heritage through the Brighamite faction of the movement have long stopped referring to themselves as Mormons. Each of these churches has looked to some point in the first fourteen years of the movement and identified that as the point where things were rocking along okay and use that as the launching pad for their particular flavor of Latter Day Saintism.

In the case of the polygamous churches that do trace their heritage back to the Brighamite faction, they also will identify a specific period in the 1852-1890 era and use that as their launching pad.

But the point is that each of the various Latter Day Saint denominations should be appreciated and understood based on their own doctrine and structure, and not treated as one big homogenous group.

 

[hokeshel]

mtatum4496, well said.
I find it very interesting that poeple get so upset about others in the United States practicing polygamy when it is prevailant around the world. People don't freak out about middleeastern or African countries doing so. Maybe we think that we aspire to a higher moral, that we are somehow more sophisticated and don't want out communites doing anything beneath them. Thsi goes for many sexual practices and relationships. But, we certainly are becoming more open to different lifestyles.

 

[mtatum4496]

I think a lot of the problem is that all polygamous arrangements have been viewed as involving almost a servant status for the women involved. In some instances, that has most assuredly been true. At the same time, there are instances where women freely choose to enter a polygamous relationship and are considered full and equal partners.

As I wrote earlier, this type of thing would not work for me. I simply don't think I would be able to invest myself emotionally in two or more partners at one time. But if we are talking about an arrangement between adults and a situation where all parties receive equitable status in the relationship, then who am I to raise a hue and cry? If they are happy, then I am happy.