Split Thread Mormons and marriage

epepke said:
Mormons practiced polyandry as well as polygyny.
Click to expand...
I'm a decendant of Mormon polygamists. I've never heard of it but then there is debate about the terms. What do you mean by polyandry?

Anyway, this is one of the few things that IMO Mormons got right, and it's quite funny to me that it's the one thing they really go ape-fertilizer over when it's mentioned.
Click to expand...
I've no problem with multiple wives. What I have a problem with is using religion to force wives to accept a new wife, often younger into the relationship. If a woman refused she had much to lose. The power structure was very problematic.

I decend from a second wife. When the husband died the second wife was summarily thrown out without anything. It was the first wife's means of revenge.
 
RandFan said:
I'm a decendant of Mormon polygamists. I've never heard of it but then there is debate about the terms. What do you mean by polyandry?
Click to expand...

One woman with multiple husbands. It wasn't as common, but it was permitted. There was one highly placed woman with two husbands, but I can't remember her name.

I'm not talking about what Smith practiced, which would more accurately be called group marriage. Not that I'm against group marriage either.
 
epepke said:
One woman with multiple husbands. It wasn't as common, but it was permitted. There was one highly placed woman with two husbands, but I can't remember her name.

I'm not talking about what Smith practiced, which would more accurately be called group marriage. Not that I'm against group marriage either.
Click to expand...


I'll be quiet surprised if you can come up with any credible evidence to support any of this.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
This reminds me of a particular passage in Isaiah, that I have some times wondered about. Isaiah 4:1 to be specific.
  1. And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.
...
Do you have any thoughts on this passage?
Click to expand...
I think civilized people of the 21st century shouldn't rely on the OT for moral advice.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
This reminds me of a particular passage in Isaiah, that I have some times wondered about. Isaiah 4:1 to be specific.
  1. And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

<snip>

Do you have any thoughts on this passage?
Click to expand...

Nobody can get the truth out of me because even I don't know what it is. I keep myself in a constant state of utter confusion. Col. Flagg.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
This reminds me of a particular passage in Isaiah, that I have some times wondered about. Isaiah 4:1 to be specific.
  1. And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.
Click to expand...
"Reproach"?

I'm sorry but that is so incredibly sexist and anachronistic. I'm so glad that humans have advanced. If a woman wants to keep her name or never get married I say hooray for modern liberal democracy.

Telulah Bankhead had no reproach.
 
Last edited:
epepke said:
Found one. Elizabeth Brough. See http://www.broughfamily.org/history/brough_tipton.html

I think you'd probably be surprised at a lot of facts.
Click to expand...

Hi epeke,
From your link, it in no way supports what you are asserting. The woman divorced and then remarried. This is not evidence of multiple husbands, only that divorce was tolerated.
Between 1861 and 1862, something negative happened that seriously impacted the relationship between Elizabeth Brough and Samuel Cartlidge, and they were divorced in 1863 in Madison County, Illinois.
On 20 February 1864, Elizabeth married Enoch Tipton in Madison County, Illinois. (Enoch Tipton was born in 1835 in Asterley, Pontesbury, Shroprshire, England, and baptized into the L.D.S. Church in April 1854.
Click to expand...
Multiple husbands does not really fit easily into Mormon theology and I would be surprised to see any evidence of it.

For Bob_blalock's scripture from Isaiah 4:1, it is being used out of context.

It is not really an advocacy of polygamy, but a continuation of Isaiah 3, where the author seems to be on something of a misogynist rant. Were we to accept it as an advocacy of polygamy, Mormons would also need to accept the earlier part about women ruling over them.

As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths...

...Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

17Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.

18In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, 19The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, 20The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, 21The rings, and nose jewels, 22The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, 23The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.

24And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.

25Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.

26And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground.
Click to expand...
Actually, that reads a little like a Monty Python skit, the author has some serious sexual repression with those women described in such detail.
 
epepke said:
Bob Blaylock said:
I'll be quiet surprised if you can come up with any credible evidence to support any of this.
Click to expand...

Found one. Elizabeth Brough. See http://www.broughfamily.org/history/brough_tipton.html

I think you'd probably be surprised at a lot of facts.
Click to expand...


Possibly, but not yet. From the article to which you provided a link…
…Between 1861 and 1862, something negative happened that seriously impacted the relationship between Elizabeth Brough and Samuel Cartlidge, and they were divorced in 1863 in Madison County, Illinois.

On 20 February 1864, Elizabeth married Enoch Tipton…​

So yes, she had two husbands, but not at the same time. She was divorced from one before she married another.

Nothing to see here. Move along.
 
epepke said:
One woman with multiple husbands. It wasn't as common, but it was permitted. There was one highly placed woman with two husbands, but I can't remember her name.

I'm not talking about what Smith practiced, which would more accurately be called group marriage. Not that I'm against group marriage either.
Click to expand...

While I'm not against people calling their relationships whatever they want (I don't care if you live with six women you call your wife along with three guys you call your husband-brothers), I have MAJOR reservations about legal recognition of those relationships beyond those already afforded close friendships or contractual partners. It gets way too messy with ideas like 'primacy' and such, to say nothing of divorce and property rights. Anyone who is in such relationships, legally recognized or not, is advised to have a VERY detailed and well documented will.
 
tyr_13 said:
While I'm not against people calling their relationships whatever they want (I don't care if you live with six women you call your wife along with three guys you call your husband-brothers), I have MAJOR reservations about legal recognition of those relationships beyond those already afforded close friendships or contractual partners. It gets way too messy with ideas like 'primacy' and such, to say nothing of divorce and property rights. Anyone who is in such relationships, legally recognized or not, is advised to have a VERY detailed and well documented will.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced there is a problem. If we can figure out how to disolve businesses, partnership (with many partners) and corpoations (many very complex) then we ought to be able to deal with group marriage. Thing is, how does state recognition significantly change anything?
 
RandFan said:
I'm not convinced there is a problem. If we can figure out how to disolve businesses, partnership (with many partners) and corpoations (many very complex) then we ought to be able to deal with group marriage. Thing is, how does state recognition significantly change anything?
Click to expand...

How does state recognition significantly change anything? Here and here (wiki) are good places to start.

A husband is in a coma, which wife gets to decide when the plug is pulled?

Husband two divorces wife four, who gets the mini-van? What resources from the group is husband two entitled to as he starts his new life, and what resources from wife four is he entitled too?

Actually using the existing rules for corporations might be a good work around for such legal disputes. I know my friends and I were looking into forming one in order to buy a house together.

It's not an intractable problem, but without some major changes to current marriage rights and responsibilities it is a large problem. It isn't the same with homosexual marriage which means basically no changes at all.
 
tyr_13 said:
How does state recognition significantly change anything? Here and here (wiki) are good places to start.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Though none of that is remotely new to me. I read your entire post before responding. I could skip the examples as you yourself seem to come closer to my position in the end. However I want to make certain.

A husband is in a coma, which wife gets to decide when the plug is pulled?
Click to expand...
Humans have been grappling with moral dillema from long before Solomon's fatuos demand to split the baby. We are a nation of lawyers. We could manage it. As it is the problem exists right now when a person dies with no spouse and multiple children. Which of them gets to decide?

Husband two divorces wife four, who gets the mini-van? What resources from the group is husband two entitled to as he starts his new life, and what resources from wife four is he entitled too?
Click to expand...
Following the death of an individual with no spouse, an estate goes to probate. No matter how many heirs, no matter how complex the estate, we always manage a solution. If we can do it for probate we could do it for divorce court. Messy? Yep. However, we could codify primacy and/or require contracts to spell everything out before a license be issued.

It's not an intractable problem, but without some major changes to current marriage rights and responsibilities it is a large problem.
Click to expand...
Large? Meh, I'm not certain how large but well within our abilities.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Thanks. Though none of that is remotely new to me. I read your entire post before responding. I could skip the examples as you yourself seem to come closer to my position in the end. However I want to make certain.

Humans have been grappling with moral dillema from long before Solomon's fatuos demand to split the baby. We are a nation of lawyers. We could manage it. As it is the problem exists right now when a person dies with no spouse and multiple children. Which of them gets to decide?
Click to expand...

It's often a complicated and costly legal battle to find out. One of the things that marriage is supposed to be useful for is that it's pretty clear who gets to make choices for you. I say 'supposed' because even that gets challenged often enough to be problematic.

Following the death of an individual with no spouse, an estate goes to probate. No matter how many heirs, no matter how complex the estate, we always manage a solution. If we can do it for probate we could do it for divorce court. Messy? Yep. However, we could codify primacy and/or require contracts to spell everything out before a license be issued.
Click to expand...

Manage eventually. My grandmother died two years ago this October. She had a clear will. We are still fighting it out with one aunt, who wants more than her third. At the time she died she was in the process of giving me 5 and 1/2 acres of land. We had already surveyed it and had a lawyer working on papers. Now that land is in limbo. The cabin I built, the land I've worked, the grape vines and trees I've planted, cannot be improved with say a well, or more earth works for vehicle access because it's still tied up. Last year I had to lend my family money to pay the taxes because this aunt refuses to pay any while it's still up in the air (which I know will come back to hurt her position eventually).

Now, you might be inclined to say that examples like this show how things already are difficult if people make it so, so why be concerned about another layer of confusion? I'm more inclined to say we should sort out the confusion first, rather than letting after thought layers of court precedent dictate procedure.

Large? Meh, I'm not certain how large but well within our abilities.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I don't think there's an especially compelling reason to go that direction, rather than refining and specifying what state endorsed marriage is to the point that people don't need to get married to be a family.
 
tyr_13 said:
Maybe, but I don't think there's an especially compelling reason to go that direction, rather than refining and specifying what state endorsed marriage is to the point that people don't need to get married to be a family.
Click to expand...
RE: Compelling reason, that is quite a good point and I agree. I would NOT push for change absent people calling for change. But we are speaking in the hypothetical.

FWIW: I see no serious consequence to obviate state recognition of multiple marriage. I understand your concerns and don't dismiss them out of hand.

Thanks.
 
tyr_13 said:
Maybe, but I don't think there's an especially compelling reason to go that direction, rather than refining and specifying what state endorsed marriage is to the point that people don't need to get married to be a family.
Click to expand...

This.

Same sex marriage ought to be legal simply because the state is currently taking a person's gender into account when deciding on their rights. That is one of the bigger nono's they are violating there.

There is no violation of any such principle involved where polygamy is outlawed.

I am not per se against polygamy, but I think the supporters have to establish what exactly it is they are asking for at a minimum. i.e. they have to explain how the complexities of a multi-person relationship should be dealt with in a construct that was designed for only two people.

(This can easily be done for same sex marriage, since it only precludes same sex couples from entering the marriage. There are no other laws or regulation where the gender of either of the spouses matters.)

In fact, I have never even seen anyone propose a model for poly-marriages so far: Would one person have several individual marriages? Or would there be group marriages?

Would there be any restriction to the number of people one could marry? 5? 10? 749? What if, say, 5 people were somehow married together under whichever set of rules: What if three of them wanted a specific 6th person involved and two of them didn't? Would there be partial divorces? What if of the 5, 2 people fell out and wanted to get divorced from each other whilst maintaining their other 3 links within the marriage?

I am sure all of that could be addressed - but right now, none of these problems can ever occur in a marriage - so for once, marriage would really have to be fundamentally redefined. I am not saying that that is a bad thing or couldn't be done - but let's not assume that it is the same thing at all as allowing same sex marriage or even remotely analogous.

(And as far as i know nothing of the sort has ever been done, either. Not that I'd know anything about it, but all forms of multiple-marriage i am aware of just meant one person had several partners, which in turn were far from equal in standing let alone towards each other.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom