Polygamy/Group Marriage

cucumbersome wrote:Finding ways to prevent abuse itself is always better than outlawing things that are often but not always abuse. But without those ways, and the necessity to do something because of the badness of the abuse... we’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. The last thing I’ll say about legal prostitution (which shouldn’t become the main topic) is that it seems to be easier to get protected against someone who is forcing you to commit a crime than it is to get protected against someone who is forcing you to do something that isn’t a crime. It’s not a matter of them feeling they have no other job opportunities.

I don't really think the discussion about legal prostitution is actually off topic here... we're not talking about legal prostitution as a whole, but only as it pertains the to the ways in which government regulates sexuality. I'll say I have a difference of opinion on who would have an easier time getting help... after all when you are already doing something illegal, forced or not, the idea of going to the authorities is daunting, especially if you live in a society where prostitutes are looked at as nothing more than whores with no social value.

I know it must seem like I'm 'for' polygamy. In fact, I am not, it is not a lifestyle I think I'd enjoy very much. Though I am very happy to be married, thrilled to be with my wife, two of them would seriously be too much. God knows two of me would drive her insane.... well, twice as insane as I do anyway. I would never recommend for people to try it, because it's just too complex and rife with potential for drama. I would counsel someone considering to really think about what they were getting into. All that said, I still don't think that a small handful of people that don't even understand the situation has any right to make any choices for them.

Beyond all that, I truly do believe that bringing things into the open is the best way of preventing abuse.

cucumbersome wrote:I live in a small country which I believe is slightly too big for healthy democracy. What size would a “local community” be? Rules about sexuality being set by a community the size of a village seem rather creepy to me. Perhaps there also is a minimum community size to have a properly functioning democracy.

That's a good point about community size, though I'd like to point out that smaller village sized communities already do make up their own rules about sexuality. Incest has never been legal in the US, but that doesn't stop it from happening when the only girls you know just happen to be your first cousins. I'm not saying that makes incest okay, I'm just saying that your smaller communities tend to really not care what the rest of the world think, they live the way they live. And yes, it is most often very creepy.

[quote="The_13th_Doctor"']

1. Morality is subjective. From a monogamous POV, yes it's immoral. From a swinger's point of view, it's not immoral, just impractical. To old school Mormons, it's practically a godly thing to do.
[/quote]

I am Mormon- albeit not "old school", and while I don't want this to devolve into one of those "What Mormon's do and don't believe" threads (I've seen WAY too many of those), I'd like to provide a little clarification on this comment along with my personal opinion on plural marriage.

When Mormon's did practice polygamy, it was not at all an attempt to be "godly". There is an ordinance performed in our temples, called a "sealing" that Mormon's believe to be vital to our exaltation - not to be confused with salvation. Salvation comes through Christ and is available to all who believe in and follow him, while exaltation is the granting of the highest blessings and glory (or spiritual inheritance) available in heaven. We believe that the sealing is the highest ordinance required of our Father in Heaven for those who wish to obtain the highest exaltation. A sealing must be performed between a worthy Priesthood holding male, and a worthy female as a joining and partnership between the two and the Lord.

In the early days of the church, not all males were given the Priesthood. There were certain requirements that had to be met first, somewhat like how the Sons of Levi were the only ones allowed to hold the Priesthood in Moses' time. Didn't matter how worthy a guy might be, if he wasn't a Son of Levi, he couldn't have the Priesthood. So- in order for a woman to obtain the blessings of a sealing, she had to be sealed to a man who had the Priesthood, meaning several woman would be sealed to the same man. Since sealing and marriage go hand-in-hand, this led to the practice of polygamy in order to avoid complications with a woman being sealed to a man who wasn't her husband and causing unnecessary contention or confusion.

Now- all worthy male members can be given the Priesthood and the sealing ordinance is performed ONLY in conjunction with marriage, so women are always sealed to their husbands. This sealing ordinance is like a chain link - connecting not only husbands to wives, but parents to children, which is an important part of geneology/family history work, in the Mormon beliefs. The point of sealings is the entering of a sacred covenant with the Lord, and those who keep and remain worthy of that covenant are promised blessings from the Lord. This also ties into the Mormon's beliefs in following the "Law of Chastity" and saving sexual relations for after marriage, so that their children will be born "in the covenant" and privy to the blessings of the sealing ordinance.

That all said - I believe that there is nothing innately, morally wrong with polygamy, so long as it is practiced righteously, which can be an extremely difficult thing to accomplish due to our mortal failings and shortcomings. This is why polygamy has not been a regular thing, but rather something practiced at particular times and periods when the Lord instituted it necessary for various purposes throughout Biblical times and modern. I believe that those who practice polygamy without an institution from the Lord do so immorally, simply because it is meant to be a tool utilized strictly for the Lord's purposes.

Now, I'm not so base as to think everyone should be held accountable to my personal beliefs. This is my opinion and what I believe based on my religious background and conviction to the Mormon faith. I believe that everyone is held accountable only to the amount of "light and truth" they've received for themselves, meaning as long as you are truly living according to your beliefs, what you've been taught, and what the Spirit has testified to you in your heart and soul to be true, you'll be alright in the eyes of the Lord, and you will receive a blessing in heaven equal to your faith and dedication to that "light" that you received here in mortality.

Nebulustrix wrote:When Mormon's did practice polygamy, it was not at all an attempt to be "godly". There is an ordinance performed in our temples, called a "sealing" that Mormon's believe to be vital to our exaltation - not to be confused with salvation. Salvation comes through Christ and is available to all who believe in and follow him, while exaltation is the granting of the highest blessings and glory (or spiritual inheritance) available in heaven. We believe that the sealing is the highest ordinance required of our Father in Heaven for those who wish to obtain the highest exaltation. A sealing must be performed between a worthy Priesthood holding male, and a worthy female as a joining and partnership between the two and the Lord.

In the early days of the church, not all males were given the Priesthood. There were certain requirements that had to be met first, somewhat like how the Sons of Levi were the only ones allowed to hold the Priesthood in Moses' time. Didn't matter how worthy a guy might be, if he wasn't a Son of Levi, he couldn't have the Priesthood. So- in order for a woman to obtain the blessings of a sealing, she had to be sealed to a man who had the Priesthood, meaning several woman would be sealed to the same man. Since sealing and marriage go hand-in-hand, this led to the practice of polygamy in order to avoid complications with a woman being sealed to a man who wasn't her husband and causing unnecessary contention or confusion.

Definition of the word 'godly': devoutly religious; pious. So, if you practice polygamy out of a sense of performing your religion correctly, then yes, it's an attempt to be godly.

Nebulustrix wrote:I believe that those who practice polygamy without an institution from the Lord do so immorally, simply because it is meant to be a tool utilized strictly for the Lord's purposes.

I call this sort of parsing of attitudes the "Samson Argument', where some things are okay so long as you happen to belong to a certain class of individual, for instance, Samson with long hair. I can't tell you how many fundamentalists I've talked to that tell me it's sinful for me to have long hair despite the fact that Samson gained his supernatural strength from his long hair. I know, it was a covenant, not the hair... but it makes no sense for me to predicate a covenant on something that is sin for the rest of the world. Double standards are great when you're on the beneficial side of the equation.

Nebulustrix wrote:Now, I'm not so base as to think everyone should be held accountable to my personal beliefs. This is my opinion and what I believe based on my religious background and conviction to the Mormon faith. I believe that everyone is held accountable only to the amount of "light and truth" they've received for themselves, meaning as long as you are truly living according to your beliefs, what you've been taught, and what the Spirit has testified to you in your heart and soul to be true, you'll be alright in the eyes of the Lord, and you will receive a blessing in heaven equal to your faith and dedication to that "light" that you received here in mortality.

I have a problem with the 'what you've been taught' part, because most people hate because that's what they've been taught. I also have problems with the testimony of the spirit in my heart... how am I to tell the difference between this 'testimony in my heart' and my own thoughts?

Personally, I tend to think of sexuality, who you're married to and how many of them, is sort of like what color and consistency your morning elimination. It's interesting to you, it may even be of some interest to those that live iwth you, but absolutely nobody else should care. God, IMO, just isn't interested in the biological details, he's much more keen on how you treated those many people you were married to.

The_13th_Doctor wrote:Definition of the word 'godly': devoutly religious; pious. So, if you practice polygamy out of a sense of performing your religion correctly, then yes, it's an attempt to be godly.

In that respect, yes, I would agree with you. If Godly= Striving to perform your religion correctly, polygamy during the time of "old school" Mormon's would have been considered "godly". I, however, was thinking of the term godly as meaning something more like "of or like God". In that sense, no, polygamy would not be considered godly. During "old school" times and the present, keeping covenants IS considered godly, by that definition. Polygamy, not so much. Important distinction there.

The_13th_Doctor wrote:

Nebulustrix wrote:I believe that those who practice polygamy without an institution from the Lord do so immorally, simply because it is meant to be a tool utilized strictly for the Lord's purposes.

I call this sort of parsing of attitudes the "Samson Argument', where some things are okay so long as you happen to belong to a certain class of individual, for instance, Samson with long hair. I can't tell you how many fundamentalists I've talked to that tell me it's sinful for me to have long hair despite the fact that Samson gained his supernatural strength from his long hair. I know, it was a covenant, not the hair... but it makes no sense for me to predicate a covenant on something that is sin for the rest of the world. Double standards are great when you're on the beneficial side of the equation.

I cede your point there and opt to change my position slightly - Perhaps I do not consider the practice of polygamy outside an institiution from the Lord immoral so much as highly susceptible to failure. Nowhere in scripture has the Lord specified that polygamy is a sin, however he does set people apart through covenants and hold them to the covenants they make with him. Samson was set apart by his covenant not to cut his hair. The people of Israel were set apart by their covenants to keep the commandments and follow the Law of Moses, those who are baptised are set apart by their covenant of baptism, etc.

Those who make covenants with the Lord are promising to do certain things and when they keep those covenants, the Lord promises specific blessings in return. When someone who makes a covenant breaks it, they also must face the reprecussions and are held to a higher level of accountability than someone who did not make the same covenant.

The_13th_Doctor wrote:

Nebulustrix wrote:Now, I'm not so base as to think everyone should be held accountable to my personal beliefs. This is my opinion and what I believe based on my religious background and conviction to the Mormon faith. I believe that everyone is held accountable only to the amount of "light and truth" they've received for themselves, meaning as long as you are truly living according to your beliefs, what you've been taught, and what the Spirit has testified to you in your heart and soul to be true, you'll be alright in the eyes of the Lord, and you will receive a blessing in heaven equal to your faith and dedication to that "light" that you received here in mortality.

I have a problem with the 'what you've been taught' part, because most people hate because that's what they've been taught. I also have problems with the testimony of the spirit in my heart... how am I to tell the difference between this 'testimony in my heart' and my own thoughts?

Personally, I tend to think of sexuality, who you're married to and how many of them, is sort of like what color and consistency your morning elimination. It's interesting to you, it may even be of some interest to those that live iwth you, but absolutely nobody else should care. God, IMO, just isn't interested in the biological details, he's much more keen on how you treated those many people you were married to.

This ties in with the last bit of my above response. It's more about being held accountable. You aren't expected to pass a calculus exam, if you've never taken calculus. Likewise, the Lord does not expect people to be held accountable to a law or directive they've never been taught or accepted as truth. Now, they won't get the same promised blessings as those who make and keep the covenants, but they won't get the reprecussions for not keeping the covenant either.

I believe it is acceptable, and it has a long history within the Abrahamic faiths. It's actually funny to track the gradual cultural change away from plural marriage and the justifications after the fact. It was Christians who were against it in the New World and Europe, but it was a case of baptizing already held cultural beliefs. There is nothing biblically wrong with polygamy, which is my primary basis for accepting it.

The thing is though, I think it can only be successful in the same way that monogamy is successful. Within a fidelitous marriage. Only with commitment, and exclusivity. Otherwise I think it provides too much temptation to discard extraneous spouses.