Posted on 05/10/2008 7:17:57 AM PDT by MizSterious
1. By allowing men to marry multiple wives, there is a risk of leaving many men with no women to marry. The costs of this include the abandonment of younger boys/men so the "competition" for wives is reduced or eliminated (as we've seen with the "lost boys"), as well as a competition for wives that tends to push down the age of marriage; and a "market" for more girls, which may push women to have more and more babies (sort of wife-producing factories).
2. Fathers in polygamous marriages cannot offer their children adequate attention. Children need their fathers (can we talk about the rampant social ills in communities where kids don't know their daddies?) How much time, love and devotion can a man with dozens of children offer to each child?
3. Polygamous marriages are inherently unequal and undemocratic.
4. Imagine the nightmare of a polygamous divorce. How do you divide children and property?
5. It is no accident that, as a rule, polygamy is illegal in modern, democratic societies, and legal in underdeveloped, autocratic ones. Modern democratic states do not legally allow polygamy. This suggests that the practice of polygamy gives rise to many practices that are antithetical to the development of modern societies, whose citizens have freedom and rights.
The consequences listed above are not all private ones, and as such, become concerns of those who live outside of these polygamous families/communities. It is not in our interest as a free nation to sanction polygamy, even if it is difficult to prosecute.
My two cents!
I was actually referencing Brigham H. Roberts, who was elected to Congress in 1898. The petition was in regard to him. Smoot was a monogamist & actually pressured the Mormons to crack down on the polygamists (because of the pressure he was getting in D.C.). Roberts was a polygamist who had been arrested for having two wives in 1886. Despite that, and despite the "Manifesto" of the Mormon church in 1890, Roberts took yet a third wife in 1894 and was overhwelmingly elected to Congress in 1898.
(So the next time somebody pulls out the 1890 "Manifesto" as some supposed "move" against polygamy, remind them of their 1898 polygamy endorsement via their Roberts vote...It was, though, the Smoot hearings that led Joseph F. Smith to issue "Manifesto II" on polygamy in 1904, which historians regard as more of a "true date" in which the LDS turned against polygamy.
Polygamy is against the interests of heirs, society and the natural order.
If a man could support, by his own efforts, dozens of wives and children then it would have been an acceptable evolution - however, if we have learned anything from history - it is than men & women protect their own biological offspring from deprivation. We are naturally competitive, jealous and territorial for that purpose.
It is also very obvious that in this modern world, the FLDS men are not supporting their dozens of wives and children - WE, THE TAXPAYERS ARE DOING SO!!!!!!!!!!! I very much resent supporting pedophiles collecting welfare and women.
It was, though, the Smoot hearings that led Joseph F. Smith to issue "Manifesto II" on polygamy in 1904, which historians regard as more of a "true date" in which the LDS turned against polygamy.
So many manifestos, so little time....and Section 132 remains untouched.
This is one reason why you had "spiritual leaders" like Brigham Young who was a nine-time divorcee--all from his polygamous wives. (That was almost 1 in 6 of his wives...and this was in comparatively low-divorce times of 1860s and 1870s...imagine what it would be now!).
A BYU history professor did a study of plural marriages in the Manti, Utah area. She discovered 83 divorces among 465 plural marriages...about 18% of them ended in divorce...35% of the polygamous men were divorced. Now keep in mind that these divorces occurred anyway despite the 19th century being less than a "divorce culture" and despite the fact that these women were told that their very celestial kingdom attainment depended on their marriage.
Even among Young's grandsons the problem was highlighted. Eugene Young wrote a very lengthy 1899 article in the North American Review I would encourage people to read called, "Revival of the Mormon Problem."
Eugene Young, who turned against polygamy & the Mormon church, wrote one of the reasons why Mormon women would so readily accepted polygamy in the 19th century: "Women were informed that the last dispensation--when Jesus Christ Himself should appear--was not far away, and that millions of souls were awaiting in the other world to be given 'tabernacles of flesh' before that glorious tie who entered the order, it was declared, should become gods and rulers and queens in the world to come, while those who held themselves aloof should be only anels and servants to the faithful. In the Mormon theology, it will thus be seen, polygamy is not a question to be decided on grounds of human inclination, but a great vital principle on which is hinging salvation for themselves and for those souls in a previous existence who cannot reach the highest glory without being born into this world. (Eugene Young, "Revival of the Mormon Problem," North American Review, p. 479)
Oh, yes, it's extremely useful, because it shows the outright duplicity of the Mormon leaders when they were called to testify before Congress.
LDS apostle John Henry Smith told Congress he had trouble remembering his own birth date. One witness said that [LDS prophet Joseph F.] Smith must be employing his words differently from the way most men ordinarily use them...His testimony was one of the most damaging of the entire investigation. (B. Carmon Hardy, A Solemn Covenant, pp. 252-253)
w
uh...maybe because polygny is blessed by GOD and homosexuality is NOT.. God blessed men in the bible with more wives.. he said homosexuality is an abomination..
except I wasn’t addressing mormonism or “56 wives”.. I was talking about what is wrong with one man loving and marrying 2 wives? most on here don’t think its possible.. most think its about sex... true polygamy isn’t about getting more sex.. if thats all it were about, a man could just get a woman on the side and not have to deal with our backwards society when he actually tried to marry the other woman.. but then again most people who refuse to accept it can’t see past they end of their noses..
IMO this polygamy issue is being raised to take attention off what is happening in Texas. From what I read, polygamy wasn’t going on. I might not like it but it’s their choice if adults want to live together. The raid was about suspected child abuse.
Please show me scripture in the Bible where God told the men to marry multiple wives.
Maybe you don't mind supporting these men to have multi wives & huge families but many of us resent paying for it. Many of these families get welfare etc and it is not the govt nor anybody but that MAN's job to support his religious beliefs in needing so many wives & children. I won't bother to add my 2 cents on the underage sex & child abuse...Not to mention the fraud Warren Jeff's cult has cost taxpayers...
Yeah, if you have to live underground lives and fear the government stealing your kids then no wonder you might be a bit stressed.
Think about it though. 7 husbands...hmm. That’s a lot of lunches to pack but you get 7 pay checks.
That’s right up there with legalizing PCP and Meth on the list of ideas only a Liberal could love.
hmmmm I don’t want it. Can you see yourself being Wendy to 7 Peter Pans? NOT ME!!!!
Flo, so glad you posted that on this thread. So far, most of what I’ve read agrees with you. Some studies have cited a few benefits, but no benefits at all for the individual wives and children—mostly for the men and “the community” in general.
But none of those things are inherent features of polygamy. They’re just features of the FLDS way of practicing polygamy.
Please post links to Bible sources proving that God “blessed men in the bible with more wives..”
I thought about that after I posted. 7 men sitting around in their drawers watching football and waiting on food. I’d have to have me a whole bunch of kids to wait on them all:’)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.