- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Fatherof4husbandof1 wrote:
what is recovery from Mormonism?
It is a disaffected Mormon underground site that is, in my opinion, very negative, crass, vulgar, and mocking. It’s exmormon.org. When feelings are raw and anger is shallow a lot of people gravitate there,
No, assuming you mean polygyny (one man, multiple women). I consider it a church-sanctioned adultery men’s club, certainly as it was originally instituted. If it were polygamy (men & women, multiple arrangements, with sealings), I would probably not leave, but I would not participate in it. I don’t have a huge problem with polygamy. If it’s consensual, and between adults, what is the problem? We allow promiscuity in society, and multiple sexual partners, serial monogamy etc but not multiple marriage. Hypocritical. My beef is with the priesthood ban.
I am not even sure what to say. To me, at least, polygamy was and is a disgusting, filthy, revolting and offensive practice. Women are used as objects for whatever. I’m sorry but I don’t see how Brigham Young could have treated each wife with dignity, respect and equal treatment. How is it right for one man to think they are so high and mighty they they should marry 35?? wives or even two??? Peaceandjoy wrote:I am not even sure what to say. To me, at least, polygamy was and is a disgusting, filthy, revolting and offensive practice. Women are used as objects for whatever. I’m sorry but I don’t see how Brigham Young could have treated each wife with dignity, respect and equal treatment. How is it right for one man to think they are so high and mighty they they should marry 35?? wives or even two???
I’m not sure what you’re thinking of, but that’s not how it was in my family.HiJolly
I might be going to church without my wife if that were the case. I would not take another wife, even if my wife said she approved — both because I know in her heart she really wouldn’t approve, and I can’t imagine the headaches/heartache it would cause. Personally I don’t understand how you can give yourself wholly to someone, and then to another at the same time. I just doesn’t compute for me. As a follow-up to HiJolly’s comment about his family – nor mine, fwiw. I know it is and was that way in some cases, but . . . not in mine.
I don’t feel it is possible to have a healthy polygamous relationship any more than it is possible for a teenager to have a healthy relationship with an older adult. Sure that was practiced widely in a certain era and many girls were married off very young. But we know how wrong that is now and we cannot and should not accept that kind of behavior. I think it’s important to remember that polygamy back then wasn’t seen as a loving romantic relationship. Posterity translated to increased glory and power in the celestial kingdom for the man. I’m sure plenty of wives had their hearts broken back then and I don’t think one can read Annie Clark Tanner’s “A Mormon Mother” without feeling really bad for what she experienced. I think it may have been Emmeline B. Wells giving this fiery speech about how polygamy had nothing to do with romantic feelings and love. Polygamy wasn’t polyamory. For practical reasons in large families it was a matriarchy with children having little to no relationship with fathers and being raised by a mother and aided by sister wives. Going back to that would mean relegating women to the level of just above property and fathers to absentee heads of homes. Thanks but no thanks. Even if I believed it was a commandment back then, which I don’t, I wouldn’t want anything to do with it. GBSmith wrote:I think it’s important to remember that polygamy back then wasn’t seen as a loving romantic relationship. Posterity translated to increased glory and power in the celestial kingdom for the man. I’m sure plenty of wives had their hearts broken back then and I don’t think one can read Annie Clark Tanner’s “A Mormon Mother” without feeling really bad for what she experienced. I think it may have been Emmeline B. Wells giving this fiery speech about how polygamy had nothing to do with romantic feelings and love. Polygamy wasn’t polyamory. For practical reasons in large families it was a matriarchy with children having little to no relationship with fathers and being raised by a mother and aided by sister wives. Going back to that would mean relegating women to the level of just above property and fathers to absentee heads of homes. Thanks but no thanks. Even if I believed it was a commandment back then, which I don’t, I wouldn’t want anything to do with it.
+1. Well said.
Peaceandjoy wrote:I am not even sure what to say. To me, at least, polygamy was and is a disgusting, filthy, revolting and offensive practice. Women are used as objects for whatever. I’m sorry but I don’t see how Brigham Young could have treated each wife with dignity, respect and equal treatment. How is it right for one man to think they are so high and mighty they they should marry 35?? wives or even two???
Not all polygamy was one man and many women. In some cases, women had more than one husband.
35 is far too much, but if it’s consensual and respectful, where is the problem?
SamBee wrote:
35 is far too much, but if it’s consensual and respectful, where is the problem?Consensual and respectful is relative – depending on your view and definition.
IN the US, an adult can have “consensual” sex with a minor. It’s still considered “rape.”
I think there are many women who consent to polygamy, because they don’t, or feel like they don’t, have any other options.
Cwald, I think we can consider anyone under the legal age not to be “respectful” in this context. Some of the comments about polygamy, i.e. women don’t get love, care and attention, they get used, abused etc, could just as well be applied to monogamy, or common-law-marriages (co-habitation).
I’ve seen many cases of informal polygamy, i.e. where a wife doesn’t mind, or at least tolerates a mistress, or even where the other lover lives in. I used to know an American woman who lived with two men successfully for many years.
You make a good point. I think this is just one of those issues we just can disagree on and “still be friends.” 🙂 SamBee wrote:Some of the comments about polygamy, i.e. women don’t get love, care and attention, they get used, abused etc, could just as well be applied to monogamy, or common-law-marriages (co-habitation).
I’ve seen many cases of informal polygamy, i.e. where a wife doesn’t mind, or at least tolerates a mistress, or even where the other lover lives in. I used to know an American woman who lived with two men successfully for many years.
True enough. I expect that there are plenty of wives who would be happy to be left alone sexually and continue to be financially supported in exchange for another wife in the picture. And mistresses and lovers are just part of the way life has always been only more open these days. But we’re talking about God telling you to take another wife. At that point you have to decide if your leaders are inspired or if your own inspiration is valid. For me the root of the matter is that JS claimed it was a commandment from God, a revelation, and I don’t think it was. It makes everything that he preached and proclaimed suspect in my mind but that’s probably something for another thread.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.