Split Thread Mormons and marriage

Rasmus said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm poly, though obviously not legally. I have to say that there is a substantial body of literature that addresses these issues. Trouble is that hardly anybody who isn't poly ever reads it; they just throw their hands up.

In any event, it's kind of a digression. The facts are that the early LDS recognized both polygyny and polyandry (though the former was far more common) as well as a kind of group marriage that, confusingly, some people also call "polyandry."
 
bikerdruid said:
cool. thanks.
so mormons oppose gay marriage, but support gay rights....wow.
am i the only one who sees a disconnect here?
Click to expand...

I'm going to go with PR move.

Homophobic bigots got caught being homophobic bigots and are now trying to repair their public image.

One need look no further than Bob Blaylock's posts to see how Mormon's really feel.
 
epepke said:
Well, I'm poly, though obviously not legally. I have to say that there is a substantial body of literature that addresses these issues. Trouble is that hardly anybody who isn't poly ever reads it; they just throw their hands up.
Click to expand...
Given recent findings about human rgulation of oxytocin, studies about the predisposition of bi-sexuality and other variables like divorce rates, I have to say that I think culture will very likely outgrow the current paradigm of marriage. I don't know if it will survive but if it does it likely won't look anything like it does today.
 
Rasmus said:
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.
Click to expand...


Basic science and biology takes gender into account. Two men cannot produce offspring, and neither can two women; it takes one of each. Two men cannot marry, and neither can two women; it takes one of each. It's a simple, basic, unalterable rule about how human life works. Marriage is based on it. Family is based on it. Any stable society is based on it.
 
bikerdruid said:
cool. thanks.
so mormons oppose gay marriage, but support gay rights....wow.
am i the only one who sees a disconnect here?
Click to expand...


No disconnect. We don't approve of homosexuality, or any other form of sexual immorality, but we also don't approve of violating anyone's basic human rights. We don't believe in supporting or allowing acts of violence or discrimination against homosexuals.

But marriage is what it is, and it is very sacred and important to us, and we don't accept the idea that we must be forced to accept a vulgar, fraudulent mockery of it as being in any way comparable to the real thing; and we don't think that society, as a whole, should be subjected to the ills that will unavoidably be caused by undermining marriage and family as the basis for society.
 
epepke said:
The facts are that the early LDS recognized both polygyny and polyandry (though the former was far more common) as well as a kind of group marriage that, confusingly, some people also call "polyandry."
Click to expand...


You still haven't provided any evidence at all that the Mormon church ever recognized as valid, any form of polyandry or group marriage.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Basic science and biology takes gender into account. Two men cannot produce offspring, and neither can two women; it takes one of each. Two men cannot marry, and neither can two women; it takes one of each. It's a simple, basic, unalterable rule about how human life works. Marriage is based on it. Family is based on it. Any stable society is based on it.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.
  • Can sterile people marry?
  • Can hermaphrodites marry?
At he Prop 8 trial the prosecution stated in opening arguments that no evidence for these kinds of claims existed and therefore none would be offered. True to the prosecutions prediction and to the juges angry denunciation no evidence was ever offered in defense of your particular claims. On the contrary, much sociological data was presented that contradicts your claims Bob.

Just because you believe something doesn't make it true.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
No disconnect. We don't approve of homosexuality, or any other form of sexual immorality, but we also don't approve of violating anyone's basic human rights. We don't believe in supporting or allowing acts of violence or discrimination against homosexuals.

But marriage is what it is, and it is very sacred and important to us, and we don't accept the idea that we must be forced to accept a vulgar, fraudulent mockery of it as being in any way comparable to the real thing; and we don't think that society, as a whole, should be subjected to the ills that will unavoidably be caused by undermining marriage and family as the basis for society.
Click to expand...
  • There is no basis in fact for your claims.
  • You don't have to accept anything.
  • Your religious based bigotry cannot be the basis for discrimination in a secular society.
  • You might think atheist immoral and if we choose not to have kids, then, by your logic, you could discrimiate against us also.
It's not MORMON society!
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
At the risk of pissing off RandFan even more, this is my own personal opinion on polygamy.

Wether practiced in this life, or the next it fulfills a necessary function. God in his infinite wisdom chose to create a species consisting of two genders and made both equally dependent on each other for their salvation. Unfortunately, one gender has a slight lead over the other in birth rates. If marriage is essential to ones salvation, then among those living today there will be 140 million souls that will be out of luck through no fault of their own unless there is a mechanism in place to allow them to achieve the benefits of marriage.

It is not there to allow predators like Warren Jeffs a means of reppressing their prey, it is there for the sake of those females who deserve a fair shot at the brass ring who might otherwise be unfairly denied.
Click to expand...

Yes, males. 1.06:1 overall in world population at birth.

You do know that in the USA, for example, the sex ratio at age 15 is approximately 1.03:1, i.e. there are more males than females? The main factor in a greater female population is their longer lifespan and lower death rate in middle and old age (contributing to the overall 0.97:1 ratio).
Therefore using this "logic" polyandry would be more reasonable. Or allowing group marriages with varying numbers of participants either sex.

And in case you're planning to bring up the supposed "surplus" of women in Utah in the early days of Mormonism, they aren't true either.

I'm not even going to dignify your "for the sake of those females who deserve a fair shot at the brass ring" with a response.
 
Last edited:
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.

In times of war, men tend to be killed off in greater numbers than women, resulting in an imbalance. I don't know if it has historically ever been as bad as this, but this passage seems to speak of a time when the imbalance will be so great that there will be seven women for every man, and that women will be desperate for some of the benefits of marriage, to the point of being willing to forego other expected benefits.
Click to expand...

The greatest gender imbalances documented are approximately 0.60:1 in the immediate aftermath of WW1/2; however even these were localised, short term and effected only certain population age groups.


Bob Blaylock said:
Do you have any thoughts on this passage?
Click to expand...
Yes it's nonsense; like the rest of the xian bible it's part of a collection of late bronze age fairy tales for a socially primitive nomadic people. It has absolutely no bearing on, or relevance, to a modern society. Like the rest of the bible.
 
RandFan said:
The unanswered questions are mounting.
Click to expand...
I'm still waiting for someone to address why the LDS haven't explicitly condemned their past leaders engaging in behavior such as coercing women into marriage or marrying 11 year old girls to men in their sixties.
Frankly if Joseph Smith accepted marriage between siblings I wonder what all the fuss about same sex marriage comes from.:rolleyes:

To me polygamy isn't really an issue, except in cases, like the Mormons, where women are deliberately kept in a vulnerable and subservient state. There it becomes another form of abuse and tool of control.
 
MontagK505 said:
As I recall Baboon social organization is something like this.

The alpha male gets most of the females and the lower ranking males are forced out.
Click to expand...
In lion prides lionesses with cubs will sometimes gang up on the (unproductive) mature males and drive them off.:rolleyes:
 
catsmate1 said:
You get this. Which the "mainstream" LDS does damn all to help with.
Click to expand...
It's really sad and shows how spurious the notion is that men need to marry more than one wife. And many Mormons I know, while making much of the fact that these folks are not mainstream LDS, agree that this problem exists because of the 100 years or so of Prophets preaching that polygamy was an absolute requirement for entering the celestial kingdom (become gods).

Polygamy and Eternal Marriage

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. --Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, pg. 269.

Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; and I will go still further, and say that this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord had given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned. --Brigham Young, Deseret News, November 14, 1855.

God has told us Latter-day Saints that we shall be condemned if we do not enter into that principle; and yet I have heard now and then... a brother or sister say, 'I am a Latter-day Saint, but I do not believe in polygamy! Oh, what an absurd expression! What an absurd idea! A person might as well say, 'I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, but I do not believe in him.'… The Lord has said that those who reject this principle reject their salvation, they shall be damned, saith the Lord... --Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 17, p. 224-225.
Click to expand...
 
catsmate1 said:
I'm still waiting for someone to address why the LDS haven't explicitly condemned their past leaders engaging in behavior such as coercing women into marriage or marrying 11 year old girls to men in their sixties.
Frankly if Joseph Smith accepted marriage between siblings I wonder what all the fuss about same sex marriage comes from.:rolleyes:

To me polygamy isn't really an issue, except in cases, like the Mormons, where women are deliberately kept in a vulnerable and subservient state. There it becomes another form of abuse and tool of control.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. Unfortunately our resident Mormons don't want to step up to the plate. I'm sure they're good guys and all but hey, these are difficult questions. Now, okay, you might think that having an omniscient deity on your side would help but they guy has been busy of late and he isn't taking calls. They will just have to stall until the big guy comes back from his massage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom