Polygamy In Heaven

[BlackMormon]

https://medium.com/@abecollier/what-can ... 1b4c4b0304

I found the article above very interesting and respectful. The author proposed that the Church takes a stance on heavenly polygamy. I would like to add that the number of multiple wives sealings is small. I also like.the new Prophet, Nelson, who broke two taboos in modern church history.

#1 He set an example and precedent that an older man can marry a much younger woman in the event his wife dies. This was good because typical Church members have long praticed AGEISM when it comes to dating and marriage.

#2 Nelson also exemplified polygamy in heaven as he is sealed to two women. The media won't touch this and the Church will be quiet about it.

I have heard references in church talks.and general conferences about our Heavenly Mother. This is interesting because it raises the question about Mary's role. (Two women).

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other churches leaders were married and sealed to multiple wives and I have never heard a talk in General Conference referring to this fact. Why?

[Not Buying It]

I'm not sure I would give President Nelson any credit for breaking a supposed "ageism" barrier - there have always been powerful men who had wives who were much younger. Look no further than the current President of the United States. If anything, President Nelson merely did the same thing a lot of powerful older men do.

I think it had less to do with President Nelson wanting to break an ageism barrier, and more to do with Aunt Wendy wanting to snag a General Authority. Sorry, but it beggars belief to accept that as a 57 year old woman she would have married any random 81 year old man. There was something markedly different about the 81 year old man she did marry.

[wtfluff]

So... Is the basic "gist" of your post @BlackMormon that you are in support of polygamy?

Real-life polygamy?

Polygamy in heaven?

Only the mormon version of polygamy?


Also:

I would like to add that the number of multiple wives sealings is small.

Are you saying that there are not many folks out there like Russ Nelson?

I would disagree with that statement. LDS folks don't have any better success at making marriage work than the general population does, and there are plenty of divorced folks out there who end up participating in this "spiritual polygamy" stuff whether they want to or not. Plenty of widowers out there who get sealed to a second wife just like Russ Nelson and Dallin Oaks too. Just going with the statistics of the Q15: 13% of them are participating in "spiritual" polygamy.

[alas]

I'm not sure I would give President Nelson any credit for breaking a supposed "ageism" barrier - there have always been powerful men who had wives who were much younger. Look no further than the current President of the United States. If anything, President Nelson merely did the same thing a lot of powerful older men do.

I think it had less to do with President Nelson wanting to break an ageism barrier, and more to do with Aunt Wendy wanting to snag a General Authority. Sorry, but it beggars belief to accept that as a 57 year old woman she would have married any random 81 year old man. There was something markedly different about the 81 year old man she did marry.

The ageism in marriage has always been older men marrying younger women. To really break the ageism, he should have married a woman his own age. But, no, he married someone younger than his own daughter. That is just creepy, not breaking any barriers. Now, if a 90 year old woman married a 50 year old man, that would be breaking barriers.

[Thoughtful]

I'm not sure I would give President Nelson any credit for breaking a supposed "ageism" barrier - there have always been powerful men who had wives who were much younger. Look no further than the current President of the United States. If anything, President Nelson merely did the same thing a lot of powerful older men do.

I think it had less to do with President Nelson wanting to break an ageism barrier, and more to do with Aunt Wendy wanting to snag a General Authority. Sorry, but it beggars belief to accept that as a 57 year old woman she would have married any random 81 year old man. There was something markedly different about the 81 year old man she did marry.

The ageism in marriage has always been older men marrying younger women. To really break the ageism, he should have married a woman his own age. But, no, he married someone younger than his own daughter. That is just creepy, not breaking any barriers. Now, if a 90 year old woman married a 50 year old man, that would be breaking barriers.

Exactly, and it fits right in line wth the precedent JS set of marrying women young enough to be his child.

[Palerider]

Now, if a 90 year old woman married a 50 year old man, that would be breaking barriers.

If a 50 year old man married a 90 year old woman it would mean he's a gold digger.

[alas]

Now, if a 90 year old woman married a 50 year old man, that would be breaking barriers.

If a 50 year old man married a 90 year old woman it would mean he's a gold digger.

Is that any different than aunt Wendy who married a much older man for status and wealth? Or Mrs trump who married a fat old man who told her that she could have a child but she had to get back to her pre pregnancy weight in a few months? So, yeah, I think the women who do it are also gold diggers.

[Palerider]

Now, if a 90 year old woman married a 50 year old man, that would be breaking barriers.

If a 50 year old man married a 90 year old woman it would mean he's a gold digger.

Is that any different than aunt Wendy who married a much older man for status and wealth? Or Mrs trump who married a fat old man who told her that she could have a child but she had to get back to her pre pregnancy weight in a few months? So, yeah, I think the women who do it are also gold diggers.

I guess everyone would like "security", eh? What's that line from the old Eagles tune? "A rich old man and she won't have to worry, she'll dress up all in lace and go in style."

Just depends on what one is willing to sacrifice for it.

[BlackMormon]

My position is that, if gay marriage is law and acceptable now, so should all other forms of marriage, including polygamy among consenting and mentally capable adults. I am not saying that I personally would engage in that but I think equality should cover all types of marriage arrangements IF that's the route society wants to follow now and in the future.

I hadn't really thought about the divorced women that are STILl sealed to their former husbands. Interesting.

AGEISM exists and it is mostly male bashing, i.e., males are discouraged from marrying whom they love (or lust after) when the females are much younger. But, like I said, I am glad that Nelson set the example for the members. After all, follow the prophet, right? He married a person 30 years younger If I recall and a virgin? Apparently she had never been married. With all due respect, more power to him. I don't see anything wrong with what he or she did. Their business. Prophet Nelson showed members how it's done. He could have married an 88 year old at the time, but he was and is in good shape for his age, lucid, highly accomplished and ambitious so he went after what pleased him, a much younger woman. However, the irony, is that if a 50 year old male went and married a 21 year old in the Kingdom, members would find it reprehensible. Oh the hypocrisy.

[IT_Veteran]

And after he dies she’s not able to be sealed to another man without cancelling her sealing to the prophet.

[Corsair]

My position is that, if gay marriage is law and acceptable now, so should all other forms of marriage, including polygamy among consenting and mentally capable adults. I am not saying that I personally would engage in that but I think equality should cover all types of marriage arrangements IF that's the route society wants to follow now and in the future.

Some case will probably come up to challenge the bigamy laws, but it probably won't be a Mormon who does it. Perhaps from the FLDS and perhaps an orthodox Muslim.

However, the irony, is that if a 50 year old male went and married a 21 year old in the Kingdom, members would find it reprehensible. Oh the hypocrisy.

That didn't stop LDS leaders in the 19th century from marrying much younger women.

[Reuben]

Society has a huge interest in supporting pair-bonding. Children with two parents have big advantages, emotionally and economically (at least). It's a stabilizing force.

On the other hand, forms of marriage with any number of partners usually end up polygynous because of how men and women are wired. (On average, men tend to be more aggressive and competitive than women, among other things.) If there's no shortage of men, polygyny creates a surplus of young, unattached, disadvantaged men, which leads to violence and war:

https://www.economist.com/news/christma ... my-and-war

Imagine a large minority of the men in a country being part of the Incel movement. This would probably happen regardless of everything we would do to ensure equal rights for women in polygynous unions.

IMO, it's good to declare government recognition of pair unions a positive right, but it would be bad public policy to extend that right to larger unions.

[Not Buying It]

AGEISM exists and it is mostly male bashing, i.e., males are discouraged from marrying whom they love (or lust after) when the females are much younger. But, like I said, I am glad that Nelson set the example for the members. After all, follow the prophet, right? He married a person 30 years younger If I recall and a virgin? Apparently she had never been married. With all due respect, more power to him. I don't see anything wrong with what he or she did. Their business. Prophet Nelson showed members how it's done. He could have married an 88 year old at the time, but he was and is in good shape for his age, lucid, highly accomplished and ambitious so he went after what pleased him, a much younger woman. However, the irony, is that if a 50 year old male went and married a 21 year old in the Kingdom, members would find it reprehensible. Oh the hypocrisy.

Older men men marry younger women all the time. The degree of social disapprobation appears to be directly related to the man’s position in society - rich and powerful men rarely receive much disapproval for marrying a younger wife. There was nothing brave about what President Nelson did - plenty of powerful rich men do it.

But it rarely happens the other way - and that’s what I find troubling. There is a sexism to the practice of older men marrying younger women but rarely the other way around, because it tells a woman that once she is old she is danger of being replaced. It says that youthful beauty trumps all else in a woman, and once that is gone she’s out of luck. It is men sending a message to women - “your value is heavily dependent on your age”.

I don’t really want to hear talk of how ageism prevents men from getting younger women who were born decades before and often don’t really have as much in common with the guy as they do his children who are her age - boo freakin’ hoo, the real victims out there are the women who get thrown over by shallow men who think youthful beauty is the most important thing a woman has to offer.

I’m not trying to offend you, but I feel like your thoughts on “ageism” promote attitudes that aren’t healthy for older women.

[alas]

AGEISM exists and it is mostly male bashing, i.e., males are discouraged from marrying whom they love (or lust after) when the females are much younger. But, like I said, I am glad that Nelson set the example for the members. After all, follow the prophet, right? He married a person 30 years younger If I recall and a virgin? Apparently she had never been married. With all due respect, more power to him. I don't see anything wrong with what he or she did. Their business. Prophet Nelson showed members how it's done. He could have married an 88 year old at the time, but he was and is in good shape for his age, lucid, highly accomplished and ambitious so he went after what pleased him, a much younger woman. However, the irony, is that if a 50 year old male went and married a 21 year old in the Kingdom, members would find it reprehensible. Oh the hypocrisy.

Older men men marry younger women all the time. The degree of social disapprobation appears to be directly related to the man’s position in society - rich and powerful men rarely receive much disapproval for marrying a younger wife. There was nothing brave about what President Nelson did - plenty of powerful rich men do it.

But it rarely happens the other way - and that’s what I find troubling. There is a sexism to the practice of older men marrying younger women but rarely the other way around, because it tells a woman that once she is old she is danger of being replaced. It says that youthful beauty trumps all else in a woman, and once that is gone she’s out of luck. It is men sending a message to women - “your value is heavily dependent on your age”.

I don’t really want to hear talk of how ageism prevents men from getting younger women who were born decades before and often don’t really have as much in common with the guy as they do his children who are her age - boo freakin’ hoo, the real victims out there are the women who get thrown over by shallow men who think youthful beauty is the most important thing a woman has to offer.

I’m not trying to offend you, but I feel like your thoughts on “ageism” promote attitudes that aren’t healthy for older women.

Not Buying It is too kind. Much too kind. Your thoughts on "ageism" are downright sexist. Abhorrently sexist.

[alas]

And, the only way poly game ever works is in cultures with high rates of warfare, where 3/4 of the young men are killed in battle, but no women are involved in warfare. So, no bombing of cities and the stuff of modern warfare. It has to be the kind where men go off away from towns and villages and kill each other in hand to hand combat.

So, are you volunteering to be one of the three out of four men killed?

[Jeffret]

And, the only way poly game ever works is in cultures with high rates of warfare, where 3/4 of the young men are killed in battle, but no women are involved in warfare. So, no bombing of cities and the stuff of modern warfare. It has to be the kind where men go off away from towns and villages and kill each other in hand to hand combat.

I suspect it's possible in a limited adoption fashion. Oaks said regarding gay marriage, "One generation of homosexual 'marriages' would depopulate a nation, and , if sufficiently wide spread, would extinguish its people . Our marriage laws should not abet national suicide." That's true if everyone were to participate solely in gay relationships / sex. But that's ludicrous. In spite of the fact that gay marriage has been available for almost three years, I'm still not interested in a gay relationship. I'm quite satisfied with my straight marriage. And there's no indication that birth rates have been significantly affected. Indeed many gay parents raise children very successfully.

A culture that adopts polygyny as its standard, expected form faces the problems you describe. It's only supportable where the culture kills off a large number of its men. Or otherwise kicks them out. Even within the subcultures, this issue exists. I suspect that much of these same forces are what drives the abuse and controlling of women. I suspect these results are inevitable within any culture that demands polygyny as the standard.

However, in situations where polygamy is a minority subset of relationships, as with gay relationships, I'm not sure these flaws necessarily arise. There do tend to be a host of issues and difficulties with having more than two people involved in the relationship, but I'm not yet convinced that the abuses and exclusions necessarily exist. There have been a number of articles on polyamorous relationships where the people express satisfaction with the arrangements. I don't have any reason to reject their experiences. Dan Savage has talked a lot about his open relationship.

There still remain a host of legal issues involved with extending marriage recognition beyond two people. Polygamous / polyamorous people will have to pioneer how to resolve those. Overall I consider it might be possible to recognize that approach as a valid minority subgroup. I suspect that if they were recognized some of the abusive and problematic situations would be reduced.

[alas]

And, the only way poly game ever works is in cultures with high rates of warfare, where 3/4 of the young men are killed in battle, but no women are involved in warfare. So, no bombing of cities and the stuff of modern warfare. It has to be the kind where men go off away from towns and villages and kill each other in hand to hand combat.

I suspect it's possible in a limited adoption fashion. Oaks said regarding gay marriage, "One generation of homosexual 'marriages' would depopulate a nation, and , if sufficiently wide spread, would extinguish its people . Our marriage laws should not abet national suicide." That's true if everyone were to participate solely in gay relationships / sex. But that's ludicrous. In spite of the fact that gay marriage has been available for almost three years, I'm still not interested in a gay relationship. I'm quite satisfied with my straight marriage. And there's no indication that birth rates have been significantly affected. Indeed many gay parents raise children very successfully.

A culture that adopts polygyny as its standard, expected form faces the problems you describe. It's only supportable where the culture kills off a large number of its men. Or otherwise kicks them out. Even within the subcultures, this issue exists. I suspect that much of these same forces are what drives the abuse and controlling of women. I suspect these results are inevitable within any culture that demands polygyny as the standard.

However, in situations where polygamy is a minority subset of relationships, as with gay relationships, I'm not sure these flaws necessarily arise. There do tend to be a host of issues and difficulties with having more than two people involved in the relationship, but I'm not yet convinced that the abuses and exclusions necessarily exist. There have been a number of articles on polyamorous relationships where the people express satisfaction with the arrangements. I don't have any reason to reject their experiences. Dan Savage has talked a lot about his open relationship.

There still remain a host of legal issues involved with extending marriage recognition beyond two people. Polygamous / polyamorous people will have to pioneer how to resolve those. Overall I consider it might be possible to recognize that approach as a valid minority subgroup. I suspect that if they were recognized some of the abusive and problematic situations would be reduced.

Yes, I totally agree with everything you said. As a small subgroup, especially if one woman is allowed two or three men, then I see no reason for it to be unworkable as far as numbers go. Just as many women want multiple sex partners, now it is just called adultery. And society pretends women have lower sex drives and pretends that women are by nature monogamous.

There is the legal problem of how to divide up marital rights. With gay marriage, one of the biggest driving factors was the marital rights. In fact, my straight sister and her straight roommate considered getting married because of the legal benefits or survivorship. It would just simplify the legalities of my sister, who is 20 years younger, inheriting their home and having the pension as widow, instead of her own meager pension from being a secretary.

I see no reason for the second wife, who will have no automatic marital rights, to want to make the relationship "legal." It just makes it harder for her to get out of it. I mean, right now the couple can have a specific contract, wills can be drawn up to specify that second wife gets X, third wife gets Y, and first wife gets Z and anything not otherwise specified. The man can PAY for health benefits on second wife and children, or it can be provided by wife's job. They can be married religiously.

Contracts will have to be drawn up for each wife, on a specific basis anyway. What purpose is there in the government recognizing it as "marriage"? Unlike gays where it is one to one regardless of gender, not four to one or whatever.

Making it "legal" will not stop the abuses of underage brides, coercion, and corruption. Making underage marriage illegal in India has not helped. Legal marriage age is 18, yet half of the girls below that age are married. The girls are still coerced into the marriages, because their family gets an economic benefit. I would link to the article I just read, but I can't do links on an iPad and don't have a computer. And when Utah decriminalized polygamy it did not stop the abuse. They knew they would not be prosecuted, but that did not make them any more open about the fact that the 12 year old got married.

[Not Buying It]

But as I said in my post in the other thread, where has there ever been a group that practiced polygamy where it wasn’t coercive, abusive, and generally just bad for a substantial number of the women in the group? There has never been a group that practiced polygamy where it resulted in most of the relationships being healthy for women. Perhaps as Jeffret said it is workable when polygamy is only a very small subset of relationships in a much larger group, but I greatly fear it’s legalization would merely strengthen the hand of abusive groups that practice it without many other members of society participating in the practice. Legalization of polygamy would provide little benefit to most of society, but would provide legal cover for cults and other abusive groups.

[alas]

Of course, we could write up the laws with supper horrible punishments for any violations, and include things like a man has to prove he can and will support all wives and children. So, for taking more than one wife a man has the following conditions. There is a financial means test. And if we find a wife who is struggling as single mothers do, we throw the husband's butt into prison. He must prove he can and will support all wives. (countries with currently legal polygyny do this) The husband has to be independently wealthy in order to prove he can support all wives. Anyone caught with an underage wife gets his butt thrown into prison (and gets castrated) and any sister wives who knew she was underage also get thrown into prison. As do her parents if they approved the marriage. Any man who has children on welfare, and we do DNA tests to determine paternity, gets his wages garnished, and if can be proven he has multiple children with multiple wives, he gets his butt thrown in prison. Divorce for unhappy wives is easy. Divorce for unhappy husbands doesn't exist. There would have to be penalties for those practicing polygamy undercover, so we have to go back to prosecuting "cohabitation" (sleeping together) by unmarried couples.

For polyandry, the laws would not have to be as strict because one woman is not going to have 56 children. But since we have to make laws gender neutral, she would have to prove she can support all husbands and any children born into this group marriage.

We would have to enforce that couples practicing polygamy do it legally, so there has to be the protections of punishment for those doing it illegally. Thus we have to punish the parents of children born out of wedlock.

Personally, I don't like the idea of these laws regulating the legal practice of polygamy.

[Jeffret]

But as I said in my post in the other thread, where has there ever been a group that practiced polygamy where it wasn’t coercive, abusive, and generally just bad for a substantial number of the women in the group?

I don't have personal experience, but do any of these qualify?

More Than Two

What It's Like to Be in a Polyamorous Relationship

Married, With Infidelities

Dating experts explain polyamory and open relationships

How to Make Polyamorous Relationships Work

New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You

Keep in mind that I'm not advocating for any of these situations nor am I interested in any of these polyamorous relationships any more than I'm interested in a gay relationship (both of those come in a zero interest). I just think the earlier statement is overreaching. In a closed or semi-closed group it may be true, but I'm not convinced it is as certain for a minority situation in a larger group. I'd have to deny what these people share to make that claim and I don't know how I can do that any better in this case than with any other number of subgroups or characteristics in which I lack personal experience.