- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Just something to consider: A man with four wives in Africa can be obeying the Law of Chastity as defined in the temple (since he is “legally and lawfully” wedded to all of his wives), but he can’t join the Church as the sexually-active husband of those four wives – even if he’s fully “temple-worthy” in every way. An American man in that situation isn’t living the Law of Chastity as defined in the temple, since there are anti-polygamy laws on the books in America – which means he only is legally and lawfully wedded to his first wife.
Whether or not anyone agrees with allowing polygamy, in this regard, from a historical standpoint, “we have become them” – so to speak.
Yes Ray, the tables have certainly turned in the last 130 years. SamBee wrote:I don’t have a problem with polygamy, if it’s consensual, and involves adults. I think Western Society is utterly hypocritical on this issue.
I wouldn’t either Sam, in a perfect world situation where fully informed fully consensual aldults were involved. I would have a problem with societal pressures on young-adult women to enter polygamous marriages where they normally would not have chosen it for themselves.
Orson wrote:I wouldn’t either Sam, in a perfect world situation where fully informed fully consensual adults were involved. I would have a problem with societal pressures on young-adult women to enter polygamous marriages where they normally would not have chosen it for themselves.
+1, It is sometimes frightening the momentous life decisions that are placed upon the shoulders of such inexperienced people. I think ideally individuals should be guided but not pushed in these life decisions. I have heard it said here that the only way one can fully understand what a lifetime of commitment to another individual will entail is to have lived it. Surely there are added concerns to a lifetime of commitment in a polygamous marriage.
Orson, suppose your statement was modified to read “I would have a problem with societal pressures on young-adult people to marry young and immediately embark on having a large family where they normally would not have chosen it for themselves.” Would it still ring true for you?
Quote:I would have a problem with societal pressures on young-adult women to enter polygamous marriages where they normally would not have chosen it for themselves.
As I’ve said elsewhere, most of the arguments against polygamy can be applied to monogamy. In many parts of the world monogamous couples are pressured to marry, or arranged to marry.
Many people enter monogamy with inexperience. Polygamy is just another form of marriage.
I ran into the polygamy question as a missionary in Germany. We taught people there who were refugees or immigrants from the Middle East and Africa. I wasn’t sure if one guy we were teaching had more than one wife. They often have other female “relatives” with them, and just claim they are a sister-in law or cousin. It seemed like this guy was going to get baptized, so I took the polygamy question up the chain of command to the mission president. I didn’t want a surprise during the baptism interview. The official answer: In cases where an investigator is legally and lawfully married to more than one woman in his country of origin, he could not be baptized and join the Church at this time. We are very sorry, but that rule applies to all existing and potential members regardless of local law and customs.
Roy, while that is a concern it just doesn’t carry the same weight. Polygamy to me introduces so many multiples of difficulty. For most women it will have no hope of providing the kind of emotional security that monogomy can. Sam, basically the same response. While there are many difficulties and potential problems with all kinds of marriage situations I think polygamy in a similar way to infidelity makes a specific emotional security extremely hard to obtain.
Orson wrote:Roy, while that is a concern it just doesn’t carry the same weight. Polygamy to me introduces so many multiples of difficulty. For most women it will have no hope of providing the kind of emotional security that monogomy can.
Sam, basically the same response. While there are many difficulties and potential problems with all kinds of marriage situations I think polygamy in a similar way to infidelity makes a specific emotional security extremely hard to obtain.
Very well said, I couldn’t agree more. The “multiples of difficulty” associated with polygamy require careful consideration before the relationship is entered into. This would make it especially heinous when young girls are forced into the arrangement (as opposed to the also unfortunate situation of young people pressed to marry young and have kids before they are otherwise ready [as a further aside I applaud GBH for toning down this pressure]). It would also seem from what I understand of FLDS practices that the pressure applied is of another degree entirely than the more conventional “Why aren’t you married yet?” or “When are you going to start having kids?” that I found so annoying.
But young girls are forced into monogamy in many parts of the world too! Especially Russia and the Middle East.
So could it be said that monogamy is ideal (when one is able to freely choose his/her spouse), because it provides the best emotional/psychological circumstances for the children and for the spouses involved? I have a post titled “Interview with the Community of Christ” at my blog. John Hamer, FireTag, and Margie Miller answered several questions. This was one of my favorites regarding recent polygamy. See http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/06/09/interview-with-the-community-of-christ/ Quote:Is it true that the Community of Christ allowed polygamist members to join in the 1970s?MH: Missionary work commenced in India, where polygamy is legal. FireTag tells that a revelation allowing polygamist Indians to be baptized.
FireTag,
The revelation brought to the church and confirmed by the general conference established for us the principle that “monogamy is the basic principle on which Christian married life is built” and authorized the First Presidency and the Quorum of 12 (Apostles) in their field jurisdictions to interpret that principle as directed by the Spirit.
The implementation ultimately meant that newly baptized polygamous people were allowed to remain in those marriages for the rest of their lives, but were not allowed to take additional marital partners into the marriage. The latter act would be treated as adultery or fornication under church law (I forget which).
This ruling became a schismatic issue for a number of people.
Margie Miller discussed this amazing development on my blog. In her words,Community of Christ had a valid reason for allowing that practice to continue in 1970. I was one of the people who took exception to it at the time and made a special trip to Independence to visit with President Shehee about it. I was appalled! He had [asked] me to read a couple of books about the culture beforehand and then gave me an appointment the week before World Conference. I went up determined that I was right.
He told me about the cultural situation. In that culture, if the church had insisted that all but the first wife be put aside, those woman and their children would be ostracized in their culture and would never be able to find another man to marry them.
The Indian men considered virginity to be very important.
That was not long after the war between India and Pakistan. Many women were roaming the countryside after being raped by soldiers. No man would marry them. Many of them had children from these terrible circumstances and the women traveled in groups begging for food for their children and themselves. The UN was trying their best to find men who would marry these women and give their children a home. It was very difficult.
We had gone into their villages with a horticulturist to help them to find a better strain of wheat to grow in hopes of alleviating their poverty. That was very successful and then they were more wealthy then their neighbors. The church wanted them to share their technology with the other villages and had to teach them the principles of sharing in love before that would happen. It was very successful!
A few went back to adding more wives but then the village elders excommunicated them for that. That was the agreement. The church has been very successful in a mission there in East India.
It seems that RLDS and LDS have reversed positions on polygamy.
Old-Timer wrote:Officially now, both men AND women can be sealed to all of their spouses
Ray, I’m confused. I was always under the impression that a man can be sealed to more than one woman, but a woman can only be sealed to one man. Has this changed recently? If so, where are you getting this new info?
Thanks,
Greg
Greg and Ray, living women? Deceased women? mormonheretic wrote:
It seems that RLDS and LDS have reversed positions on polygamy.Awesome! Delicious.
A woman now can be sealed to every husband she has had in this life – posthumously. That remains the only difference – that she has to wait until she’s dead for the work to be done. However, it still can be done now – which tells me that the official position is: Quote:We don’t know exactly how everything will be worked out in the end, so we will seal everyone to everyone with faith that the end result will be the right one.
I really like that change.
Yes, Ray is correct. I can’t remember when the change happened, but my mission president (a temple sealer) in the late 1980’s referred to it. I have a book called the “Development of Temple Worship” by Devery Anderson. I’ll try to find a church bulletin in there if I can. It is standard church practice to seal a deceased woman to all previous spouses. The idea is that God will figure out who she should be sealed to.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.