 sj |
||
|
||
Polygamy
Related threads:
Colorado City: Folk Song on Polygamy (8)
Lyr Req/Add:Those Wedding Bells Shall Not Ring Out (18)
Lyr Req: Polygamous gal (6)
|
|
|
Subject: Polygamy From: Deckman Date: 19 May 01 - 02:44 PM I hear they just convicted a fellow in Utah for polygamy. Now they are going to sentence him. GOOD GRIEF, he had five wives, hasn't he already been punished enough? Any polygamy songs out there? CHEERS Bob (deckman) Nelson |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: wdyat12 Date: 19 May 01 - 02:50 PM How many women have five husbands? wdyat12 |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: lady penelope Date: 19 May 01 - 03:04 PM How dumb do you think women are? TTFN M'Lady P. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Little Hawk Date: 19 May 01 - 03:05 PM Not many, I would assume. Most women are not stupid enough to get themselves into a situation like that. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: CarolC Date: 19 May 01 - 03:07 PM Liz Taylor did, I believe, but not all at the same time. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Little Hawk Date: 19 May 01 - 03:10 PM Exactly. That was seriognomy, not polygamy. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Mrrzy Date: 19 May 01 - 03:13 PM But to answer the question, does 'Enry the Eighth count? (Technically she's the wider next door, but change it to the wifey?) |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: wdyat12 Date: 19 May 01 - 03:15 PM Deckman, "Everyday in the Week" sung by Tom Rush comes to mind, although the narrator in the song never mentions marriage. Woody |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: wdyat12 Date: 19 May 01 - 03:17 PM I sometimes play this song, but I never play it for Maggie. Woody |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Mrrzy Date: 19 May 01 - 03:20 PM Seriandry, to be technical. Polygyny=many wives, polyandry=many husbands, polygamy=many parents. Closet anthropoligist. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: wdyat12 Date: 19 May 01 - 03:24 PM Clever semantics Mrrrzy. Woody |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Deckman Date: 19 May 01 - 03:49 PM ... and if five wives wasn't enough punishment, you can add thirteen children! SSSSHHHHEEEEUUUUHHHH! Bob(deckman)Nelson |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: lady penelope Date: 19 May 01 - 04:15 PM that's definately poetic justice. M'Lady P. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: SeanM Date: 19 May 01 - 05:00 PM I don't know... I think this one is even sillier than prosecuting sodomy or other 'consensual sexual acts'. I wonder if someone would consider running this one up to the Supremes as a case of religious persecution? After all, biblically, it's a tradition to have many wives... Ah, if only I had too much money and free time... M |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: katlaughing Date: 19 May 01 - 05:01 PM Art Thieme does a grand rendition of ZACK, THE MORMON ENGINEER I have read articles about some of the women in Utah who subscribe to this. Some of them are high-powered executives. One even choses her husband's next wives. They view one another as sisters and claim they help each other with everything and cannot imagine the "lonely" drudgery of being an "only" wife. One wonders if they also enjoy the company of one another in more "forbidden" ways or just enjoy the obvious respites from hubby's attentions...I mean without a steady supply of viagra, how could one man keep it up? (Pun intended.) No Offence Intended to the one Mudcat member I know of who lives in Utah. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Amergin Date: 19 May 01 - 05:11 PM Oh those Mormons have always been a bit soft in the head.... Amerginwhogrewupmormon.... |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST Date: 19 May 01 - 06:00 PM How else could he keep it up for "Nine times a night"? |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: DougR Date: 19 May 01 - 06:01 PM I assume, Amergin, you are referring to the one between the men's shoulders. (Couldn't resist ...stop that!) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Sorcha Date: 19 May 01 - 06:20 PM Although I don't approve of the practice, I do think is should be considered a religious issue. Maybe he will appeal. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Amergin Date: 19 May 01 - 06:22 PM Doug, not at the rate they breed... |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: katlaughing Date: 19 May 01 - 06:27 PM Sorcha, yes, as long as all are consenting adults |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: gnu Date: 19 May 01 - 06:30 PM Mrrzy said... Polygyny=many wives, polyandry=many husbands, polygamy=many parents. So, because he wasn't properly charged, he can get off ? |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: AllisonA(Animaterra) Date: 19 May 01 - 06:32 PM Then there's polyamory which many espouse as an alternative to "serial monogamy". |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Art Thieme Date: 19 May 01 - 06:33 PM That's on my first album for Sandy Paton at Folk Legacy Records, Art Thieme--That's The Ticket. Available now as a cassette from Sandy. Thanks Kat. Art |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: paddymac Date: 19 May 01 - 06:35 PM Like so many things, it works for some but not for all. I don't go along with 13 year-old wives, any more than I do commitments to a convent or seminary at the same age, but where such things are truly matters of free and informed choice, then I think society should not interfere by imposing majoritarian views. Most Americans probably don't take the time to ponder the question, but our culture is still greatly influenced by the perverse notions of most things sexual brought here by the Puritans and other early religiously motivated immigres. Interesting thing about the current case is who will support whatever remains of the "family" if they lock him up. Press reports claim that the family/clan/tribe/reproductive unit in question is currently drawing down some $100k/yr in various kinds of support. Wonder if that would go up or down if they lock him up, and will the wives/kids be any better of. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Troll Date: 19 May 01 - 06:53 PM In certain areas of Tibet, polyandry is common and is the accepted practice. As far as "nine times a night" goes, the article I read said that the senior wife chooses who will share their husbands bed each evening. They apparently accepted the situation with open eyes and (mostly) as consenting adults. As long as the children are provided for, why is it the governments business anyway? troll |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Bill D Date: 19 May 01 - 06:55 PM speaking of 'polyamory'...some of the songs of The Gaiaconsort deal with it...see seems to me that they oughta just let people meld as they please, as long as they define their relationship formally and follow the rules |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Sorcha Date: 19 May 01 - 06:56 PM Yes, kat, I just forgot to mention that. Troll, apparently, most of this guys wives were only 13 and 14 when he married them. My personal opinion is that Mormonism has a few loose screws as a religion, but I have known some very nice ones. And quite a few "Jack" Mormons as well. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: gnu Date: 19 May 01 - 07:07 PM Since my double joke above didn't get any response, perhaps I should ask about polyorchid fellows ? Would they be more acceptable as husbands of multiple partners ? |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Bill D Date: 19 May 01 - 07:11 PM whoops...messed up the 2nd link...try http://gaiaconsort.com/family.html |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: CarolC Date: 19 May 01 - 08:45 PM You know any guys like that, gnu? |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Mrrzy Date: 19 May 01 - 08:50 PM kat, the way thay manage with many wives is the Coolidge effect. Works a treat, no Viagra needed! Of course, women don't suffer from refractory periods (well, not in the same sense!) so the problem doesn't, um, come up. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: toadfrog Date: 19 May 01 - 09:25 PM Gee. I guess it would be reasonable to let everyone have as many wives, husbands etc. as they might want, so long as everyone is a consenting adult and marriage has no legal or social consequences. But as here we have a guy marrying 13-and 14-year old girls, and having at least one of them draw welfare to support him, I don't see it that way. Absent the "marriages," he could be doing hard time for molesting minor girls. And query, when he dies, if he does, who gets the community property? And which of those wives gets to go out on the street and beg? If I buy a piece of land from him in a community property state, and one of his 5 wives fails to sign off on the deed, can he take it back whenever he wants? Is his employer, if any, obliged to provide health care for all 5 wives? If not, who is going to tend to them if they are sick? The guy who already has one wife drawing welfare? No. His branch of the Church? Not bloody likely. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: SeanM Date: 19 May 01 - 09:40 PM Well, try the guy for statuatory rape then. If you're concerned about him marrying just for welfare benefits, then you'd better sharpen the axe for the entire system that provides better benefits for being unmarried with children as well... But still - the law in question doesn't specify 'You can have multiple marriage partners, as long as you support them' or 'You can have multiple marriage partners, as long as you're religion says you can'. Our laws state that you can only have one marriage partner and they must be of the opposite sex. It's a codified religious view that made it into law. Most 'morality' laws are. On a tangenitally related story, I once knew a guy in the US Navy who was prosecuted for 'Oral Copulation'. Under the Unified Code of Military Justice, that's considered an offense. Of course, he was also charged with abandoning his watch post, being absent without leave, being absent with intent to commit offences, adultry, and a host of other minor offenses. Such is the problem with being caught in bed with the married wife of a popular chief from another ship... M |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,Convenience words and acts ... what Date: 19 May 01 - 09:57 PM is wrong with it in the first place? If you make babies with more than one partner, you are a polygamist. The time when you do it is irrelevant. So there is no legal or moral formulae that can excuse the practice. In the United States more than two thirds of the breeding population are polygamists. Live with it or leave the United States. What is wrong with it? History and Antropology show us that such societies tend toward tribalism, see Africa and its current bout of tribal conflicts. The question now becomes what is wrong with Tribalism? The male tends to want satisfaction at all times but the female is only ready once a month, so the male chooses the one that is ready. There may be several males contesting the selection, so in primitve society the guy with the biggest stick or largest body would win. This as civilised folk know is animal behaviour and we are not animals. In order to give it some gloss of respectability there have been several religions adopted to legitimise one guy getting all and the rest nothing. Judaism, Islam and Mormonism for example. Even with the gloss the practice still produces other undesirable social and biological problems. For one sometimes a couple may marry who are really very closely related. There is also the trend toward phyical similary - see Africa and some parts of Europe which continue even to this day, behind closed doors, with the practice. Can there be a reasonable solution? Yes but not in modern religcosociety. The civilised thing to do is legalise and monitor the health of Ladies of Leisure. That way the males get all they want - and a far greater choices, the females get stable marriages and divorce ceases. How to end polygamy? As soon as a Parent chooses divorce automatic and permanent castration. If there are complaints - hey brother/sister the planet is overpoulated think of this way YOUR children will have a better world to live in. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: CarolC Date: 19 May 01 - 10:21 PM The female is only ready once a month?
GUEST,Convenience words and acts (etc.), what fantasy world do you live in? Women don't just want sex when they're ovulating. What, are you crazy? Sheesh... |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Sorcha Date: 19 May 01 - 10:26 PM Besides which, females who live together eventually synchronize their cycles to a certain extent. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,Dancing Mom Date: 19 May 01 - 10:35 PM Once a MONTH??? |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: dick greenhaus Date: 19 May 01 - 10:37 PM The plural of "spouse" is "spice". 'Nuff said |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Bill D Date: 19 May 01 - 11:03 PM that 'guest' has been living on some other planet *grin*...women have just as many desires and interests as men unless they have some 'reason' not to....and they are more free than ever to express them |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Naemanson Date: 19 May 01 - 11:18 PM I read Heinlein. I wouldn't have any problem at all with polygamy except that this guy was marrying girls that were far too young to be marrying and he was bilking the system. Lock him up! |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Naemanson Date: 19 May 01 - 11:20 PM Oh, and at least one of the mariages was incestual. Throw away the key! Oh, and then he tried to say that he wasn't married to more than one of them thereby trying to repudiate the supposedly loving relationships. Put him in the cell with Big Brucie! |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: harpgirl Date: 19 May 01 - 11:30 PM ...can I quote you on that BillD? What I find objectionable is the fact that this gentleman has spread his genes so widely into the human race. Any man who fathers more than three children should have to apply for a license to do so. And he should be able to prove his genetic worthiness! |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Bill D Date: 19 May 01 - 11:30 PM well, there have been, (and probably still are) happy, sane, reasonable multiple marriages...just looks like this one was not exactly kosher..(well, you know...) |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Bill D Date: 19 May 01 - 11:55 PM quote me?...sure..*smile*...notarized affidavits, if you want 'em... |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,Bella Date: 20 May 01 - 12:12 AM mmmm...I guess the US law reflects a certain cultural bias. I believe that it could and should change in time (should the govt/state really have a stake in "marriage"?) to reflect the reality of so many different relationships - are gay/lesbian relationships so less valid that they can't enter a formal marriage? The issue for me is the value of any adult couple-relationship, and their right to formalise this; some of this person's relationships could hardly be considered as between two adults. The other issue that I find repugnant is the atittude of privilege/right to have as many children as you wish without due consideration as to whether you are able to personally take responsibility to provide the necessities of life. Interestingly, Tibetans follow a matriachal culture - many in rural areas apparently still follow the way of women having several husbands. The way this works (simplistically of course) is that one husband will often be away (trading, farming etc) whilst the other is at home to share the usual donkey work of caing for a home children etc. The husbands regard each other as brothers, and often are. Bella |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,lloyd62 Date: 20 May 01 - 12:44 AM Is it true that Mormons have special underware? This is not the lead in to a joke!!!!! I picked this up someplace but never had it confirmed. lloyd62 |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Sorcha Date: 20 May 01 - 12:47 AM I have heard that too, "angel wings", I heard them called, but I have never been able to confirm it either. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: katlaughing Date: 20 May 01 - 01:29 AM Yes, it is true. I've read a lot of books by people who've left the church, one of which gave detailed instructions on such things. Sorry I cannot remember the name of it just now. I got it from the library. Of course she was excommunicated. For an incredible insight into the power of the LDS over woman Sonia Johnson's book From Housewife to Heretic is still a very timely read, even though it was written in the 1970's immediately after her heinous "trial" by the church for her role in the ERA movement. I guess enough have posted that I don't have to say more about wimmin having plenty of libido, eh?:-) kat |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,Women and desire.... Date: 20 May 01 - 03:11 AM Science has now provided the ideal solution, designer babies! Genetic planning means Polygamy is a bad way to make your own tribe. Tribes for the masses lol. All we need now is a disease free world and every one can do who or what ever they please. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: SeanM Date: 20 May 01 - 03:44 AM Well, all you need are decorum, taste, a sense of responsibility and common sense protective measures and you already CAN do 'whoever you please'. Ain't noone putting a gun to anyone else's head saying 'you can't date or sleep around' that I know of. Even in the most repressive of societies people still find a way around it. Admittedly, in strict Muslim societies it's a bit more problematic - but think about all the Adultery trials we're given to snicker at - then think about how many don't get caught. M |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Bill D Date: 20 May 01 - 10:29 AM 'Tis the Arabian bird alone, lives chaste, Because there is but one. But had kind Nature made them two, They would like doves & sparrows do. --(Ben Franklin?) |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: lady penelope Date: 20 May 01 - 10:49 AM Now, I always thought the mormons were supposed to be 'hot' on the idea of providing for their families. This may be because I'm an ignorant Brit. In Britain we have a fair amount of trouble with women who have never worked, are not married or, more to the point, in a stable relationship and have small hordes of children, usually by more than one man, that they expect to be kept in some comfort by the state. Apart from the age of the wives, I see no real difference and I must say it's a smack in the face for people who have children in a responsible fashion, including not having children if they cannot afford it. Before any one says anything about contraceptives not being 100% infallible, abstinance is! TTFN M'Lady P. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler Date: 21 May 01 - 06:33 AM ..and the guy gets five mothers-in-law. OK, mine is a gem, but you all know the staple comedian's stereotype. "I could always tell when it was mother-in-law at he door, the mice were throwing themselves at the trap" (Les Dawson etc) RtS |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Dave the Gnome Date: 21 May 01 - 06:44 AM The sailors prayer (or is it soldiers prayer?).
...and if we may have one wife may we also have ten. Cheers Dave the Gnome |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: gnu Date: 21 May 01 - 07:03 AM CarolC : You know any guys like that, gnu? Nope. Was on a Trivial Pursuit card. But if I ever hear of any, I'll point them in your direction.
|
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: KingBrilliant Date: 21 May 01 - 07:04 AM Doesn't polyorchid just mean blokes with more than one bollock. Eurk - one is enough. Kris |
|
Subject: Lyr Add: THE FUNERAL SONG (Keith Marsden) From: bill\sables Date: 21 May 01 - 08:27 AM THE FUNERAL SONG (Keith Marsden) 1. They wheeled the coffin down the aisle. The choirboys sweetly sang. The organ played a requiem and one sad church-bell rang. He'd always been a quiet man, not given to a spree, So we stood alone to bury dad, my poor old ma and me. 2. He was a traveling salesman, said he worked in ladies tights. We always thought that was his job, not what he did at nights. And though I'd known him twenty years, still I'd have never guessed. Why when he had some time at home he needed so much rest. CHORUS: Till all his other wives came in weeping down the aisle. We had to send for extra chairs. They queued for half a mile. They came from near. They came from far. They filled up every pew. He must have been a Mormon and my mother never knew Till all his other wives came back to share the Co-op ham tea, And they bought a lot of kids with them that looked a lot like me. 3. The priest was old and feeble and made a bad job worse When he tried to marry mother to the man who drove the hearse, And one wife rang to ask us were we going to cremate, And could we keep him on a low light as she thought she might be late. 4. One wife was only my age. She'd a warm look in her eye. She said, "You're so much like your dad, it makes me want to cry. I only live on Peel Street. Come and see me by and by, For I've something that your father liked he'd have wanted you to try." 5. Then all his other wives came in, young and old alike. One came in a bath chair and one on a motor bike. A rock star in a Rolls, a Duchess in a coach and pair, And a lady Sumo wrestler who'd been freighted in by air. Yes, all his other wives came back. They came back one and all, And they pinched the carpet off the floor and the paper off the wall. You can hear this song sung by Mudcatter Graham Pirt on the double CD "Picking Sooty Blackberries" by "Cockersdale" from Camsco (Dick Greenhaus). Cockersdale are doing a US tour in October this year. Cheers Bill |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Les from Hull Date: 21 May 01 - 09:25 AM Thanks for posting that Bill, I was looking for a way to include Keith's wonderful song in this thread. I should point out that the last verse is an additional verse (wasn't it written by Chris Sugden aka Sid Kipper?) Les |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: gnu Date: 21 May 01 - 12:49 PM King Brilliant... polyorchid means having more than two testicles. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: CarolC Date: 21 May 01 - 01:20 PM Thanks gnu, you're too kind. Do guys like that need special jock straps made for them, or can they just use the regular ones? |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: katlaughing Date: 21 May 01 - 02:13 PM Bill/Sables, thanks for posting that! I think you sang that at my house last year, yeah? I had a friend back east whose mother found after her dad died, that he had a couple of other wives and families, in other states. He was a traveling salesman, but not LDS. So my friend and her mom wrote to them all. My friend and her sister have now met some half-brothers and sisters, all in their 50's-60's and her mother has met her "step-moms"! All those years and none of them knew about the others! |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: mousethief Date: 21 May 01 - 02:59 PM Just thinking out loud here about this case. This is all just my opinions, and some of them are firmer than others, and others are quite squishy. In general and all other things being equal, how many spouses a person has, and of what gender, is none of the government's business. I'd prefer if the government stayed out of most people's private affairs (no pun intended) most of the time. We must distinguish between "marriage" as a religious institution, and "marriage" as a civil institution. Whether and how one is "married" in the religious sense is a question for one's religion, and THAT is none of the government's business, per the 1st amendment. Now as to the civil institution -- if the government decides to recognize a certain condition (call it "marriage" or call it "condition X" -- it matters not) then it certainly can make rules regarding who can file for said condition; however at least in the gender question it is hard for me to see how the government has any interest in defining it one certain way. Now there are reasons, from the civil point of view, for defining marriage as the union of 2 and exactly 2 persons. For one thing, one purpose of civil marriage is to provide for survivorship/inheritance in the case of the death of one partner. Conceivably rules could be made for the polygamous cases; but it strikes me as a legal headache and just from a "CYA" point-of-view the government could be expected to not want to deal with the multi-spouse case. The fact that this particular guy was defrauding the government and not supporting all these "wives" is presumably a problem with this one guy, and not with the institution of polygyny. And the fact that people in these bizarre multiple marriages were wed illegally young, and sometimes against their will, is not necessarily a reason to prohibit the practice for people who are old enough and are, in fact, consenting. (Indeed a case could be made that legalizing the practice would make preventing abuses easier.) Anyway just some thoughts. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Jon W. Date: 21 May 01 - 03:08 PM Kat, I can't be offended by you bringing up "Zack The Mormon Engineer" since I'm the one that submitted it to the Digitrad DB in the first place. As far as Sonia Johnson goes, I'm not to crazy about her or the ERA--I believe that if it had passed in the '70s, by now men would be useing it as a weapon to take priveleges away from women. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. As a descendant of Mormon pioneers, some polygamist and some not, I feel that the provision in the Utah State Constitution which outlaws polygamy, and was forced on the people by the federal government as a condition to statehood, is not a just law. It baffles my why the County attorney decided to prosecute Tom Green, though it may have something to do with a misguided attempt at improving the state's image for the 2002 Olympics. On the other hand, convicting the fellow of criminal non-support was probably the right thing to do. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Penny S. Date: 21 May 01 - 05:43 PM If people are brought up to accept a certain way of life, can they be said to have free will if they choose to follow what they have been taught is right? Whatever age they make their choices? In the case of marrying in early teens, the girls have clearly not reached their full development of mind. I note that none of the wives are of the same age, or near the same age as the husband, and that the gap is considerable between him and the oldest. Either he had some difficulty in finding a partner when he was at the normal age for marriage, or, living in a polygamous society, all the women his own age had been snapped up by the older men in the group. Polygyny must have the effect either of depriving some men of partnership, or of driving down the age of marriage for the females. It cannot treat women as of equal value with men. I am aware that the religious groups concerned are of the opinion that God supports this view - it's the one thing all long established religions agree about, but I feel that an argument which makes Goering the spiritual superior of Hildegard von Bingen lacks moral power. Sorcha's point about the synchronous menstruation had occurred to me, but I am afraid the amusing vision of every one of those mobile home doors being shut to him once a month wouldn't happen because of the regular pregnancies |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Grab Date: 21 May 01 - 06:35 PM Jon W, convicting him of rape would have been the right thing to do, given the age of the girls concerned! Cutting off benefits to the family if they have no intention of trying to support themselves is a civil matter for the various welfare agencies, but sex with a minor is a criminal offence. I think Alex has it right - relationships amongst consenting adults are their own affair. I'd rather see a general-purpose state of marriage which encompasses any long-term relationship. This could then be extended quite easily to cover polygamous or polyandrous relationships. You could solve the "travelling salesman's roving willy" problem by sending a letter, registered, own-signature-only, to every partner in the relationship when one member wants to marry someone else! Penny, I'm not sure that'd be the case if multiple-partner relationships of both sexes were allowed - the two would tend to balance out. I agree though that an imbalance towards men does devalue women - you can see that with the highly-publicised forced marriages of young girls to Mormon men (often inside family groups) and with arranged marriages of Muslim girls. If men have more status in the culture, it's almost inevitable that women become adjuncts to "their" male - a good survival tactic in the case of a primitive society, but not much good in any modern society that values equality of opportunity. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Jon W. Date: 21 May 01 - 06:52 PM Yes, the young age of the wives is another factor to consider. Tom Green is still facing additional charges of statutory rape in the case of his first wife, who was 13 at the time of their marriage, and bore a child at 14. It seems like an open and shut case against him except for some possible statute of limitations arguments. I must say that I find this aspect of Tom Green's and other so called Mormon fundamentalist's practice of plural marriage repugnant, and I don't believe that the historical "mainstream" Mormon practice of polygamy before 1890 featured marriages of young women below the age of consent, although I don't have a lot of specific data to back me up. As far as the numerical disparity between men and women, in those early days (and still today) there were more women than men willing to live the basic doctrines and principles of the church, which were a prerequisite for plural marriage. So the disparity wasn't so much of a problem. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: toadfrog Date: 21 May 01 - 07:17 PM Mousethief You are a reflective guy, what you say is interesting. Now consider: As a religious or civil institution, marriage is not only a relationship between individuals. It is a relationship which imposes on themlegal obligations to each other, and gives them legal rights and privileges vis a vis third parties. All of which the church or the state enforces. And the people who say, the state has no business regulating who marries, are irresponsible, because as the state enforces the rights and privileges that go with marriage, is it is reasonable that it regulate them. That is the ratio decidenti of Shelly v. Kramer in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that racially restrictive covenants in deeds constitute state action because the state enforces them, so that those restrictive covenants are unconstitutional. In other words, since the state confers goodies on married people, it is not unreasonable that the state may, within limits, decide who gets the goodies. This guy married lots of women so as to maximize the goodies he gets from the state, and he will pay for it. In this country, bigamists who don't hurt anyone don't get tried and convicted. Nothing I can see wrong with that. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,Words and acts .... more Date: 21 May 01 - 07:30 PM Penny puts the case for regulation far better than I did above, thankyou Penny! In the end these cultures descend toward violence to settle who is and who is not allowed to have a home, a family etc. In fact that is precisely why in the United States gun ownership is so well protected. It is nearly always the case where males far exceed the law they will own several weapons and typicaly support other polygamists. So for example after David Koresh ( real name Vinny Howel - who had a previous Homicide history BTW ) was killed there was a well organised attempt to justify all he had done. He had impregnated underage girls, used drugs as a means of entrapment and imprisioned some of his victims. The parent of any underage girl would not be welcome at Koresh City! I think Thomas Hobbes amply expounded the consequences of no social contract and I do agree with his conclusions. How could we do otherwise? Women who think they can outdo the animals we call polygamists may well think about this. In Africa where the pracitce has survived to this day the IQ of the average person is far lower than that of Europeans, the primitive reaction to crisis is violence rather than reflection etc etc. Biological trends indicate that more of the brain of tribal society tends toward sexual function. In simple terms your brain falls out your ass. The hair of the head tends toward pubic type etc etc.
|
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,joe Date: 21 May 01 - 09:49 PM i don't know fr sure, but me being 54 yrs old, i think my wife is showin' me around to try to get a little help from some younger women; from her own culture, of course. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: CarolC Date: 21 May 01 - 10:55 PM GUEST,Words and acts .... more,
You start out sounding like you make some kind of sense, and then you write something that makes me wonder what in the world you're talking about. Personally, I find myself agreeing for the most part with toadfrog. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Ebbie Date: 21 May 01 - 11:23 PM I tend to agree with those who wonder just where the offense lies and why the 'state' has any interest in polygamy. (Of course, abuse of state funds and institutions, as well as sexual assaults on minors are susceptible to legal action. That's separate from the point at hand.) If the state can outlaw polygamy, what will eventually likely develop with the current societal trend of serial marriages and the spouses and families left behind? What about the single parent families that go on welfare because the departed spouse cannot support a given household? Just what is the difference between five wives at one time or five wives accumulated over 30 years? Will that too become illegal? Isn't there still a serious imbalance between the numbers of women and men in the world? It has been debated for a couple of generations whether eventually several women will voluntarily share one man, so that each will have the protection and and support and comfort of a spouse. Will we someday look back and laugh at the notion that there ever was a time when polygamy was prosecuted? Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,Words acts and plain English Date: 22 May 01 - 01:50 AM What I am talking about, Carol, is the inevitable evolution of the brain of the male toward it's ass, ie his brain knows nothing other than conquest, hence the tendency of those begot of such animals toward irrational response when confronted with a problem. If it can't be fixed, kill it - in the USA that means with a gun.
|
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,Bella Date: 22 May 01 - 02:39 AM Haven't lurked for a few days - good to see my drift has evolved. Although I'm a one man at a time kind of gal (chance would be a fine thing!), I don't see why my way should be the only way. I don't see any wrong in adults choosing what ever kind of relationship "turns their crank" as long as no one is being exploited or abused. Adults with children does not fit into this. Nor can we all expect to be able to rear children all alone without the assistance of our wider village...but to father 25 children offends even my leftism. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: CarolC Date: 22 May 01 - 03:14 AM Women who think they can outdo the animals we call polygamists may well think about this. In Africa where the pracitce has survived to this day the IQ of the average person is far lower than that of Europeans, the primitive reaction to crisis is violence rather than reflection etc etc. Biological trends indicate that more of the brain of tribal society tends toward sexual function. In simple terms your brain falls out your ass. The hair of the head tends toward pubic type etc etc.
What I am talking about, Carol, is the inevitable evolution of the brain of the male toward it's ass, ie his brain knows nothing other than conquest, hence the tendency of those begot of such animals toward irrational response when confronted with a problem. If it can't be fixed, kill it - in the USA that means with a gun. --GUEST,Words acts and plain English
I don't know. That sounds like a bit of racist dogma to me. Take Hitler, for example. He wasn't African. But he was one of the most conquest oriented people the earth has ever known. Then there's Julius Caesar, Napoleon, George Patton, all Europeans or of European descent. None of them with pubic hair on their heads. And of course, throughout the history of the U.S., Americans of European descent have done their fair share of killing what can't be fixed as well. I guess they did a pretty good job of wiping out the tribal people who were there before them. And then there's the little matter of the nuclear bomb. So I guess I don't buy this theory you have about tribalism and conquest. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Whistle Stop Date: 22 May 01 - 08:42 AM I avoided this thread for a few days, but ultimately couldn't resist jumping in. Then I got towards the end and found that Alex (mousethief) and toadfrog (toadfrog) had already said most of what I would have said. Just add my voice to their choir -- government has no business interfering in anyone's religious decisions, but it does have a responsibility to regulate contracts. These contracts should be free of any unnecessary constraints concerning race, gender, and the like -- the government should not define marriage to exclude interracial or same-sex marriages, because this has the effect of violating the principles of equal protection under the law (help me out here, folks -- in the US, is that the 13th or 14th amendment?). When various (generally conservative) US politicians proclaim that the government must protect the "sanctity" of marriage, or preserve the common understanding that marriage is only for two people of the opposite sex, they are neglecting equal protection considerations and injecting themselves into religious issues that are outside of their legitimate purview. However, since the government enforces obligations related to marriage contracts, and serves as a guarantor and/or provider of basic necessities for people who have entered into a marriage contract (and their offspring), it is appropriate for the government to regulate the number of parties that can enter into one of these contracts at any one time. That is a proper government function. Boy, Alex and toadfrog said it all, but that didn't stop me from spouting off anyway, did it? |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Bagpuss Date: 22 May 01 - 08:52 AM Can I just point out that there is also a serious related issue in France at the moment. There are some polygamous African migrants to France who were told when they moved there that the polygamy rules would not affect them and they could continue to live polygamously. However there is now talk of making these families conform to the western standard and making the man annul all but the first marriage. I saw an interview with one polygamous man who was distraught at this development - (he could support all of his family) and really upset at the thought his family might be split up. Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Whistle Stop Date: 22 May 01 - 09:07 AM In my perfect world, splitting up families is not something the government should do -- people who choose to live together should be free to do so, even in larger groups than are conventional. However, government may wish to clarify that it will only recognize certain parties as having standing, should there be a breach of the marriage contract. Ideally, it should do this at the outset, rather than to give this fellow one impression when he enters the country, and then tell him something else after he and his family have settled here. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Grab Date: 22 May 01 - 09:18 AM Guest, you'll find tribal societies all over, regardless of the country. Your typical crowd of English soccer thugs, for instance, or ice-hockey fans. And their behaviour doesn't exactly impress me as being reasoned and non-violent! IQ test results in Africa may well be lower, basically since most Africans have little or no education. To pass an IQ test, you need to have been taught to think in a particular way, hence you can learn how to maximise IQ scores quite easily. If you've not been taught to think that way, you won't be able to pass the tests. This doesn't affect rationality or personality, any more than my inability to do better at German grammar than your typical 10-year-old German makes me mentally handicapped. Equally, blacks with the same standard of lifestyle and education as whites perform identically - variations in blacks' performance compared to whites in Western countries are much more due to lack of motivation from family, social pressures and basically lack of money. Gun ownership - hmm, that's a whole nother thread again! Me, I'll be interested to see what China does. Given that men significantly outnumber women, women can now pick and choose husbands, and consequently are likely to get much more power. Legalising (consenting!) polyandry would be a suitable choice there for the same reason that Brigham Young legalised polygamy in Utah, namely a gross imbalance in the genders. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Mrrzy Date: 22 May 01 - 12:55 PM I like the idea of the gubmint regulating contracts but not religious accords. The priesthood (large sense) can then dictate what a religious marriage can be, and the gubmint can say only that contracts must be entered into knowlingly. It's the knowingly part that would exclude children, as they could be ineligible to consent till they were older. But where would the cutoff be? Legislated or what? We already have "age of consent" for sex, it could easily be extended to anything else, like a contract. Thus a 14-year old couldn't sell their bike without parental permission? Are we OK with that? And if the contract DOES come with social or legal consequences, like inheritance or deathbed rights (those things that are leading many gay activists to lobby for same-sex marriage), what is the problem? I see a marriage in that sense as encompassing 2 or more adults, and all members of the marriage are married to all the others. There can be 1 man and many women, 1 woman and many men, or many men and women. If one person wants to divorce, they divorce the whole marriage, not just the person with whom they are fighting now. Children benefit from the group, but their individual parentage is known. Then, if someone divorces the group: You can't make a divorcing parent pay child support for ALL the kids, even the ones not theirs, but you CAN require them to pay the support for theirs (known by biology, or if in the case of infertility intervention, as determined by THAT contract). However, they can try for visitation rights to all the kids, not just their own. Then anyone in the marriage has marriage rights, like inheritance is assumed, you can visit them in the hospital, and so on. If a member of the marriage dies, all their property is inherited by the marriage, unless otherwise specified in a will. Then the only thing we need are new terms: Wife=one woman married to one man OK with everybody so far? |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Mrrzy Date: 22 May 01 - 01:00 PM Oh, and parental terms too: let's say I have 3 Moms and 2 dads, one of each being my biological parents. Do I call them all terms like Mom and Dad, the way children of gay parents often do now (e.g., Dad & Papa) so that the adults all know who's being called? Are there separate terms for biological (or if infertility interventions were made, the closest equivalent) parents and the other parents, who aren't exactly Uncles and Aunts? How about Muncle, or would that be confusing since that is how some people pronounce "my uncle" anyway? Grok the fullness! This is fun! |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,... Conquest and plain English Date: 22 May 01 - 01:01 PM Quote And of course, throughout the history of the U.S., Americans of European descent have done their fair share of killing what can't be fixed as well. I guess they did a pretty good job of wiping out the tribal people who were there before them. And then there's the little matter of the nuclear bomb. So I guess I don't buy this theory you have about tribalism and conquest. You are doing the Words shuffle, the meaning of 'conquest' - in this context - basic animal behavior, if that is too difficult for you to comprhend, think rape you'd be in the right ball park Like this, tribal bull drags female by the hair of it's head to filthy cave etc etc. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Mrrzy Date: 22 May 01 - 01:06 PM Another correction/answer: Isn't there still a serious imbalance between the numbers of women and men in the world, someone asked. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: mousethief Date: 22 May 01 - 01:09 PM Where did we get this idea about the ape-man dragging his female by the hair? It has no standing in any anthropology or archaeology. It's a myth. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: jcdevildog Date: 22 May 01 - 02:48 PM Re Mrrzy's comment that 14-year-olds wouldn't be able to sell their bikes w/out parental consent, minors are considered legally incompetent to contract (buy or sell) w/out parental consent, except when the contract involves the necessities of life. This law was apparently intended to keep children from buying expensive, unnecessary items which they then could not legally return; but technically it would apply to selling also, so that if a child sold his bike for a dollar, the parent would have the right to negate the deal and repossess the bike. You may feel a 14-year-old has the right to make such a decision; on the other hand, do you want umpteen banks sending him/her credit cards? It's bad enough that 18-year-olds are bombarded with them! Regarding special Mormon underwear, my information is that these are called "sacred garments". I've never actually seen any, but I understand they're somewhat similar to your summer-type union suit (short-sleeved and short-legged). Anyone who has actually glimpsed the sacred fabric, please enlighten our darkness! |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Amergin Date: 22 May 01 - 02:57 PM Hey, Jon W.....I am descended from Mormon pioneers also....some of them emigrated from South Africa..... Do you know any Ellis' or Knights? |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: CarolC Date: 22 May 01 - 04:07 PM You are doing the Words shuffle, the meaning of 'conquest' - in this context - basic animal behavior, if that is too difficult for you to comprhend, think rape you'd be in the right ball park
Like this, tribal bull drags female by the hair of it's head to filthy cave etc etc.
GUEST,... Conquest and plain English I think you're the one doing the Words shuffle. Conquest is conquest. The only difference is target and scale. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Jon W. Date: 22 May 01 - 04:13 PM Can't say that I do know any Ellis' or Knights personally, nor do the names ring any bells as far as my geneology is concerned. There was a famous 19th century Mormon named Jesse Knight who discovered silver in the mountains of western Utah, and who's resulting financial contributions to the church enabled it to get over some rough times. I believe he was American born, however. Regarding the sacred garments, the word "sacred" implies that we don't talk about it in public! |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: mousethief Date: 22 May 01 - 04:30 PM I've glimpsed the sacred undies (I asked my Mormon cube-mate if he wore 'em and he stuck his thumb down his shirt collar and pulled up the t-shirt to show me) but couldn't tell it wasn't just an ordinary undershirt. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Amergin Date: 22 May 01 - 04:37 PM Jon W., the Knights were American...I believe they were from the same neck of the woods as Joseph Smith Himself....in fact one of my ancestors employed him....The Ellis' emigrated from South Africa though... |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Penny S. Date: 22 May 01 - 04:48 PM Someone said that the pushing down of the age of women at marriage would not happen if women were allowed multiple marriages as well. True, but would the men agree to it. To suggest that China may go that way and that this would increase the status of women does not tally with some research I have seen - sorry, I can't remember where. In societies where women are few, their value to the men rises, but not as persons, as chattels, and the women find themselves changing partners, involuntarily, more frequently, and sometimes with violence. We can't win. Since I posted last, I've remembered something else which would damage the polygamist society with young brides. Babies born to teenage mothers are more vulnerable than those born to mature women. Most vulnerable would be the boys. The society might well increase the inbalance between the sexes. I understood that the polygamy practiced in Mormon society at the beginning was in response to the effect of the opposition to them and the loss of husbands, leaving unprotected widows. In those circumstances, there might be an argument for the arrangement. The alternative would be a convent of some sort, but Mormon beliefs about marriage would make that difficult. Do all the marriages count as eternal, or only one, by the way? Penny |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Penny S. Date: 22 May 01 - 05:20 PM Also, if the way a society is organised results in a lot of young men without partners who see potential partners being monopolised by older men, is it likely that those oyung men are going to put up with it? It doesn't seem a sensible way to keep them in the faith. I heard a debate on the BBC recently, arising from calls from some Muslims to allow polygamous marriages to take place in Britain. In the panel was Tariq Ali, who gave the information that in Pakistan, the laws have been moderated in such a way that polygamy can take place, provided (in accord with Muslim teaching) that the husband can look after all wives and care for them equally) AND that the first wife agrees. They are not doing so. Polygamy (at anyrate concurrent) is becoming rare. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,How stupid can I get duh.... Date: 22 May 01 - 05:52 PM Carol the context clearly illustrates the use! You should be a Lawyer and predicate the truth along with the other 190 million spoiled humans in the USA. On an unrelated point did you know that many of the Civilsations wiped out by the Greek and Roman Israeli were so far into filth and sexual perversion they could not defend themselves, worn out ...... nudge nudge wink wink. About the evolution of the CNS and ANS. The primitve funtions - including sex - belong to the ANS, roughly the reflex nerevous system. The Central nervous system which is the reasoning part of the human brian is more or less seperate, however the it's control does tend toward ANS demands in some societies. The fact is that where polygamy is long practiced this merging is far greater and the male will typicaly have very little selfcontrol in some situations. A bare leg may get a female raped! So in modern societies where polygamy is regulated they make the females cover their skin. Makes sense to me, Carol. Question is do modern Americans want this kind of society? I most certainly do not.
|
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,joe Date: 22 May 01 - 08:06 PM Mrrzy, with regard to your definitions above, what would a 'Muffbund' be? |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: CarolC Date: 22 May 01 - 08:54 PM GUEST,How stupid can I get duh....,
As stupid as you want, I suppose.
"Carol the context clearly illustrates the use!"
I don't agree.
"You should be a Lawyer and predicate the truth along with the other 190 million spoiled humans in the USA."
It's pretty laughable that you would think I'm spoiled. I live in a two room apartment, I don't own a car, and I am grateful for the fact that I have indoor plumbing. I have lived without it.
"...... nudge nudge wink wink."
I have to tell you that your nudges, winks, and etc. etc.'s are icky.
"About the evolution of the CNS and ANS. The primitve funtions - including sex - belong to the ANS, roughly the reflex nerevous system. The Central nervous system which is the reasoning part of the human brian is more or less seperate, however the it's control does tend toward ANS demands in some societies. The fact is that where polygamy is long practiced this merging is far greater and the male will typicaly have very little selfcontrol in some situations. A bare leg may get a female raped! So in modern societies where polygamy is regulated they make the females cover their skin. Makes sense to me, Carol."
I'm going to need to see some credible documentation of this, including brain scans, before I'm willing to give it any credence. You need to document that this is a function of the brain, and not the product of the attitudes with which men are raised in those cultures. I'm not advocating either for or against polygamy. Personally, the idea of it leaves me feeling pretty uneasy. However, there are legal and constitutional considerations that people have brought up in this thread that seem to be legitimate and worthy of discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,Oh now I can not see what the problem is :) Date: 23 May 01 - 12:04 AM "Carol the context clearly illustrates the use!" 'I don't agree.' You don't agree with the meaning or the use? I am lost on this one. How about this the male whacks the resisting female over the head with rock then drags her off, would that be conquest? |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: CarolC Date: 23 May 01 - 12:17 AM What I have a problem with is that you seem to be suggesting that the behavior in question, ie: conquest, is ok in the context of the way it is practiced by people who are not members of tribal societies, and yet not ok when practiced by members of tribal societies.
You seem to be saying that 'rape' is an indicator of primitive, animal like behavior, while watching people as they are being gassed to death is not. I will repeat what I stated before... conquest is conquest. The only difference is target and scale. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Grab Date: 23 May 01 - 07:38 AM Can we stop feeding the trolls yet? |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Mrrzy Date: 23 May 01 - 09:11 AM Muffbund - the husband who doesn't get you pregnant? |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,Conquest is ... Date: 23 May 01 - 10:22 AM Feeding the trolls again, btw the reason I am not still a member of this forum is remarks like Grab's above. Neither for or against Tribalism, what makes you think that? Sure why not? If the primitve is hell bent on breeding it's kind toward Apedom why shouldn't they? In modern society the practice is controled, sadly what we have today, Islam , resticts the female not the male. A little biased lol. In the USA, evidence is there but needs some analysis of data on crime, school performance and biography. Should the USA adopt Islam?. Something will have to be done - maybe not at this time but the day is comming, it not a question of whether but when. A simple solution would be castration after the first population/crosspopulation takes place, the irrationality can be treated with either chemical or surgical tools. For example the frontal lobes of the brain could be removed in the worst cases. Also not clearly stated - it is not alone the male lack of discipline that contributes to the trend but also the rapid pollution of a population by it's offspring, where typical statistics indicate up to 4 females to one male, ie he may have fathered 12 children for example - often in different states, so hard to document. Of these data suggests 6 will be male and the female inherits the damaged genetic material of further 'irrational' male offspring. In contrast the monogamous population is being overtaken simply by being outnumbered, hence current estimates of 30% normal against 70% polluted. Other areas of study - immigration, ie importing clean stock from mongamous societies Mexico being the current source as opposed to Africa where lots of good emigrants could be found lol. 22 million in the last 15 years - 10% adjustment lol. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Mrrzy Date: 23 May 01 - 10:53 AM Hey guest..with comments, where are you from? |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: CarolC Date: 23 May 01 - 03:48 PM ...the irrationality can be treated with either chemical or surgical tools. For example the frontal lobes of the brain could be removed in the worst cases.
Well, GUEST,Conquest is ..., if anyone ever puts your treatment for irrationality into practice, you'd probably best be looking to protect your frontal lobes.
A simple solution would be castration after the first population/crosspopulation takes place
I guess you don't hold with the practice of vasectomies and tubal ligations for the purpose of sterilization. I think I'm done talking with you.
Grab, I'm sorry if you feel that I have been feeding trolls. Our GUEST has not recieved any flames (with the possible exception of a mild one in this beginning of this post), so it's hard for me to see how he has been fed if trolling for flames has been his objective. There has been dialogue, but as distasteful as the subject matter has been, it is still dialogue. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,joe Date: 23 May 01 - 07:51 PM you mean me, mrrz, (may i call you mrzz?) or some other guest with more extended opinions? |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,IQ ... Date: 24 May 01 - 03:08 AM "Well, GUEST,Conquest is ..., if anyone ever puts your treatment for irrationality into practice, you'd probably best be looking to protect your frontal lobes."
Insults when weak illustrate lack of sherical objects? Try again .... if you can think somehing original and really irritating lol |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Mrrzy Date: 24 May 01 - 10:51 AM GuestJoe, I'm not sure if I mean you, I mean the guest (I assume it's the same Guest) who adds things like Conquest Is, or Oh, now I see, and other comments, to their Guest tag. Whether that is you or not, yes you may call me Mrrz (although the more usual shortening is Mrr). But the question remains, and again it is for contextual info, where are you from? |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Branwen23 Date: 24 May 01 - 12:54 PM I grew up Mormon... I no longer am active in any church activities, and don't consider myself a member of the church. As far as the polygamy issue goes, all I know is that in Primary (LDS Sunday School for young children) and in the Young Women's Program, we were always told that the practice of polygamy among Mormons started on the Mormon Trail from Nassau to Salt Lake, when many men were killed in various ways, leaving widows and children, and that these women and children were basically adopted into other families. They always told us that once the Mormons were settled in Salt Lake City, and had established communities, that the practice was discontinued at the direction of Church elders, without any direction from the American Government. But everything I've ever read that wasn't a church publication (not that there are many publications on church history regarding this issue, they pretty much avoid talking about it) seemed to say that the Mormons were forced by the government to abandon the practice once the Utah Territory was assimilated into the US. I always sort of felt that there was an embarrassment within the Church that the whole thing ever happened. Of course, I grew up in Texas, and have never known anyone who was ever involved in a polygamous relationship. The climate may be somewhat different in Utah. As far as questions re Mormon garments, try this link: Click here -Branwen
|
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,Sorrel in Utah Date: 24 May 01 - 03:07 PM Tom Green is not a 'Mormon' - despite what that uninformed Matt Lauer says. Since the Prophet said in 1896 "No more plural marriage" any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints engaging in such behaviour is in opposition to one of the fundamental principles of the church. I do not know what church affiliation Tom Green has, but 'mormon' he is not. BTW- Amergin, I come from South Africa. Due to the extent of inbreeding down there I betcha we's cuzzins. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,joe Date: 24 May 01 - 08:12 PM Mrrz, (may i call you, Mrrz?) 'i was... booooorn in east LA....' actually in Lynnwood which is just south of there. have lived in Whittier, just east of there most of my life. 'joe' is my only name on this thread. i've used 2 other names on previous threads to experiment w/ alternate personae, but this one draws out 'directness' so i use it most, claro? |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Jon W. Date: 25 May 01 - 12:39 AM First to answer Penny's question - Usually the plural marriages were eternal, what we call sealed for time and all eternity. Sometimes a widow would have been sealed to her first husband, and then entered a plural marriage with another man and sealed for time only. Some of these would have been wives in name only (maybe they just didn't want the hassle of being courted for the rest of their lives. Second, to respond to Branwen23, I suppose the church, or more likely some members of it was/were embarrassed about plural marriage. It certainly isn't a subject discussed much with children and young teenagers. I personally feel quite comfortable discussing it, and I am about as active a member of the LDS church as I can be. BTW I didn't grow up in Utah, although my parents did. As far as the church not officially acknowledging the government's role in forcing the end of the practice, I will leave you with this link to the Official Declaration which ended the practice of plural marriage, which is part of the Doctrine And Covenants, a book which is considered by LDS faithful to be modern scripture on par with the Bible and the Book Of Mormon in truth, authority, and sacredness. Read it and the associated commentary and judge for yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,Don't beleive it folks ! Date: 25 May 01 - 10:22 AM Plural marriage, polygamy is alive and well in Idaho, Utah , Montana and lots of other states! Quietly tolerated it is doing just fine lol.
|
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,joe Date: 25 May 01 - 08:46 PM here, here! |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Haruo Date: 25 May 01 - 08:59 PM One of the great seriandriistesses of literature is the Wyf of Bath in Chaucer's Caunterbury Tales; pretty sure she had outlasted five husbands. Liland |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: Penny S. Date: 26 May 01 - 05:50 AM Jon, thanks for the correct term - I knew I hadn't got it right, but couldn't remember it. It's a long time since I read up about the LDS, when I had a child in my class from a family in that church. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,joe Date: 29 May 01 - 10:41 PM i think we should open this subject for more discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,Grumpy Date: 30 Mar 07 - 04:24 AM Cheers all. I've been looking for these words ever since a good mate used to sing the song in our Folk Club. Sadly I've lost touch with him but always think of him when the song comes to mind. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,Riverman Date: 30 Mar 07 - 06:23 AM This has been an interesting thread. Like Jon W I'm an active member of the church (from the UK) and also like him I've never been one to avoid the churches associations with the whole thing. However, I'm very glad it's come to an end which is a legitimate personal view. The church, however, rightly and vehemently defends itself against any confusion between its innocent, law abiding members and folks like our man in question who turn such things on its head to justify a criminal lifestyle. And to pick up on something Lady Penelope mentioned (although I don't think she was targeting the LDS church) the church has recently said that planning a family should be a matter of consideration taking into account financial and social circumstances and that's a position I support strongly. Thanks for your wide-ranging views, it's been great. I just wish I knew those folk songs about the subject. |
|
Subject: RE: Polygamy From: GUEST,Ken Brock Date: 30 Mar 07 - 09:08 AM A few show tunes are relevant: "Solomon" from Cole Porter's NYMPH ERRANT (circa 1933). The "Eastern and Western Love" sequence from THE DESERT SONG (Romberg-Harburg-Hammerstein, 1928) "By The Mississinewah" from Cole Porter's SOMETHING FOR THE BOYS (circa 1940?) perhaps "It's a Puzzlement" (I'm not sure) from THE KING AND I (Rodgers and Hammerstein, circa 1951). |
| Share Thread: |