Would You Accept Polyandry?

[clbent04]

4 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I'm reminded of Acts 2:44

44  And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
 

I need to add that scripture to my post of "Interesting Scriptures"!

 

[Vort]

3 hours ago, chasingthewind said:

10 monogamous couples who each have 6 kids -- >  60 kids from 20 total people

A polygamous family of one man and 10 wives -- > 60 kids from 11 total people

11 people instead of 20 is far more efficient.

Not really. The "missing" nine people are healthy adult men, the most productive people in an agrarian society. You are decreasing the number of your most important type of person. That's not efficient.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Was this pun intended? 

I had noticed that as I wrote it, but no.  Not intended.?

[Blueskye2]

On 8/23/2017 at 5:39 PM, MormonGator said:

@Vort is absolutely right, men and women are different when it comes to sex, for sure. If you enter a fraternity with an attractive women and say, "Who wants to sleep with her right now, in your room-no strings attached and you'll never see her again?" There will be a line at the door, 50 guys waiting. 

If you enter a sorority with an attractive guy and say the same thing "Ladies, who wants to sleep with him, right now, in your room-no strings attached and you'll never see him again?" Oh sure, you'll get some women to line up at the door, certainly-but most actually won't. That's why being "friends with benefits" only works for the guy. Most women (again, most, not every single female in the world) actually want some kind of commitment. 

As delicate as I can say... I think there are physiological barriers your comparison. 50 women lined up for one guy...just saying. 

[Blueskye2]

On 8/23/2017 at 5:53 PM, clbent04 said:

The media portrays women as always being affected by jealousy.  Men are portrayed as not being affected as much.  I

Not really true though. Reaction to jealously is portrayed in stereotypical forms, which is more like a caricature of reality. 

Jealousy in entertainment is used as a plot device. 

?

[chasingthewind]

9 hours ago, Vort said:

Not really. The "missing" nine people are healthy adult men, the most productive people in an agrarian society. You are decreasing the number of your most important type of person. That's not efficient.

They're not missing.  The other nine men would have plural wives as well.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, chasingthewind said:

They're not missing.  The other nine men would have plural wives as well.

No, they wouldn't. That was the point of your comparison: A polygamous society to a non-polygamous one. You posited ten non-polygamous couples (twenty people), each of whom had six children, totaling 60 children and 80 people in total. You compared that with a polygamous society of one polygamist man involved in ten marriages to different women, each of whom had six children, totally 60 children and only 71 people in total. You claimed that this was a net savings of nine people, and thus more efficient.

My point is that the nine people you cut out for "efficiency" were nine of the ten most valuable people when it comes to providing for that agrarian society.

[omegaseamaster75]

20 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

This is one of those scenarios where stating a fact strongly implies a conclusion that is incorrect--in this case, the conclusion that these women were being encouraged to "step out" on their husbands to have sexual relationships with Joseph Smith.

Smith's "polyandry" can be broadly classified into two categories:  1) non-sexual "eternity-only" sealings to currently-married women who continued to cohabit only with their legal husbands; and 2) conventional marriages (and cohabitation, insofar as such was possible given Joseph's circumstances) with women who had either legally or de facto ended earlier relationships to other men.

I don't think that I implied that women were being encouraged to "step out" on their husbands, My point is and was that he did practice polyandry.  

We do not know the circumstances under which this was practiced. You have made two assertions under which these marriages may have taken place I agree with the first not the second. Mostly because we are not in possession of all the facts and circumstances. 

"Joseph Smith was sealed to a number of women who were already married. Neither these women nor Joseph explained much about these sealings, though several women said they were for eternity alone. Other women left no records, making it unknown whether their sealings were for time and eternity or were for eternity alone."

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by omegaseamaster75

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Mostly because we are not in possession of all the facts and circumstances.

Given this -- and I very much agree with you that we do not have all the facts and circumstances -- why would you choose not merely to believe, but to teach openly, that Joseph Smith had sex with women who were married to other men?

[chasingthewind]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

No, they wouldn't. That was the point of your comparison: A polygamous society to a non-polygamous one. You posited ten non-polygamous couples (twenty people), each of whom had six children, totaling 60 children and 80 people in total. You compared that with a polygamous society of one polygamist man involved in ten marriages to different women, each of whom had six children, totally 60 children and only 71 people in total. You claimed that this was a net savings of nine people, and thus more efficient.

My point is that the nine people you cut out for "efficiency" were nine of the ten most valuable people when it comes to providing for that agrarian society.

But I wasn't comparing a polygamous society to a non-polygamous one.  I was comparing an individual polygamous family to multiple monogamous families in order to show the former is capable of producing just as many children as the latter.   

If we're going to compare societies then I would need to update my example as follows,

Society A:  10 monogamous couples who each have 6 kids -- > 60 total children from 20 parents

Society B:  10 polygamous families where each family has one man and 10 wives and each wife has 6 kids -- > 600 total children from 110 parents

A parent-to-child ratio of 110-600 (0.54) is more efficient than 20-60 (0.3) and there is the same number of husbands in each case.  I'm not cutting anyone out.

It only works if you have more women than men, though.

Edited August 25, 2017 by chasingthewind

[Just_A_Guy]

5 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I don't think that I implied that women were being encouraged to "step out" on their husbands, My point is and was that he did practice polyandry.  

We do not know that circumstances under which this was practiced. You have made two assertions under which these marriages may have taken place I agree with the first not the second. Mostly because we are not in possession of all the facts and circumstances. 

"Joseph Smith was sealed to a number of women who were already married. Neither these women nor Joseph explained much about these sealings, though several women said they were for eternity alone. Other women left no records, making it unknown whether their sealings were for time and eternity or were for eternity alone."

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

 

I apologize if I came off as suggesting that there was any nefarious intent behind your words.  Rather, my point was that "polyandry" has certain connotations that cannot be proven to be applicable in the case of Joseph Smith and his wives.  

Edited August 25, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[omegaseamaster75]

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

Given this -- and I very much agree with you that we do not have all the facts and circumstances -- why would you choose not merely to believe, but to teach openly, that Joseph Smith had sex with women who were married to other men?

Quote me where I said and openly taught that he had sex with women who were married to other men? 

My personal beliefs about his practice of polyandry are not part of the discussion. I tend to think that most were to tie families to the prophet for eternity and marriage was the vehicle through which that was made possible. 

Edited August 25, 2017 by omegaseamaster75

[Vort]

1 hour ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Quote me where I said and openly taught that he had sex with women who were married to other men? 

My personal beliefs about his practice of polyandry are not part of the discussion. I tend to think that most were to tie families to the prophet for eternity and marriage was the vehicle through which that was made possible. 

We may have a clash of terminology usage here. To my ear, "polyandry" means that a woman has more than one husband. I don't know of any other definition. I assume you agree.

My understanding is that if a man is sealed to a woman for eternity but not for time, he is not her husband. If he has sex with her, he is committing adultery. For example, a couple that has been sealed but then divorce are in violation of their covenants if they engage in sexual relations, notwithstanding their status as being sealed to each other.

So far as I know, Joseph Smith did not engage in sexual relations with any woman he was sealed to who was wife to another man. His sealings to her were for eternity, not for time. Thus, it is incorrect to say that Joseph Smith engaged in "polyandry". It is not merely a little technical wording problem; it is fundamental, striking at the very root of the meaning of the word.

So there's where I am coming from. How do you see that Joseph Smith practiced "polyandry"?

[omegaseamaster75]

46 minutes ago, Vort said:

We may have a clash of terminology usage here. To my ear, "polyandry" means that a woman has more than one husband. I don't know of any other definition. I assume you agree.

My understanding is that if a man is sealed to a woman for eternity but not for time, he is not her husband. If he has sex with her, he is committing adultery. For example, a couple that has been sealed but then divorce are in violation of their covenants if they engage in sexual relations, notwithstanding their status as being sealed to each other.

So far as I know, Joseph Smith did not engage in sexual relations with any woman he was sealed to who was wife to another man. His sealings to her were for eternity, not for time. Thus, it is incorrect to say that Joseph Smith engaged in "polyandry". It is not merely a little technical wording problem; it is fundamental, striking at the very root of the meaning of the word.

So there's where I am coming from. How do you see that Joseph Smith practiced "polyandry"?

I get where you are coming from sealing vs. marriage.

The definition of polyandry is a woman being married to more than one man. So were they married or sealed? or both.  

Typically in our culture when I say I'm going to be sealed a marriage is implicit in that statement.  LDS.org calls all of his (Joseph Smith's) other marriages to married or previously married women "sealings" dodging the polyandry subject in its entirety.  I would note that the de facto apologetic website for the church fairmormon.org does call these unions marriages. https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Polygamy_book/Polyandry

 The consummation of the marriage is a whole other topic. I don't think we know enough to make a call one way or the other.

Edited August 25, 2017 by omegaseamaster75

[Guest]

Quote

24 And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God?

25 And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth.

26 And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?

27 And he said, Yea.

28 And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?

Alma 18:24-28