Not so simple!  I see a few efforts at considering the guy’s side of it here on this site – good! – I think we can benefit from a more thorough investigation.

I ask you to think of a male polygamist in the familiar gospel context.  For as long as he’s been affiliated the church, sexual morality and fidelity have been drummed into him.  Along with gospel mores, he’s the product of a society that highly values the “one true love” ethos of family.

Now, all of a sudden comes a novel challenge, one which he’s never been prepared for.  He is going to maintain a family arrangement and marital relations with not one but two women – women who have no familiarity with this sort of relationship and its implications.  Be mindful, the injunctions to love and honor and cherish his wife – wives – has not vanished in a puff of patriarchy.  Where I and you have a single person to cherish and make happy, he now has two, three, or more.  His responsibility towards any one wife has not been reduced!  In the last day he will be judged by his success in ALL of them, and getting along reasonably with one will not justify greedy, venal, or uncaring behavior with others.  He can’t slip up, he has to make a place in his heart for all of them, or he fails.

Wow, what a deal!  Twice the mouths to feed, twice the commitment, twice the poems to write and flowers to give.  And if you value your honor you can forget about welfare fraud.

Those that imagine polygamy working solely to the man's advantage should reconsider their positions.  A fellow married to four angry harridans (who will all have their periods at the same time!) is not better off than someone who married just one.  It only seems enticing on the most carnal and superficial level.  The only way anyone could envy such a man is if he had unfettered access to physical intimacy – which would require a great deal of influence (or raw exertion of power) over them.  Some may indeed envy their romantic opportunities - or perhaps the unequal, unthreatening relationships that don't require a person to reach beyond their existing ability to love - but not I: one powerful and intimate relationship is far better than several shallow, one-sided and even adversarial ones.

(Parenthetically, from this standpoint, FLDS behavior is more understandable – an entrenched patriarchy and unquestioned leadership are an absolute necessity for men who are not willing to develop deep relationships with all their many wives.  The man is the Ba’athist, if you will, ruling over an Iraq full of disenfranchised women.  If he weakens his grasp he is finished, and becomes a prisoner in his own family, drowning in a sea of estrogen.)

I think that one of the reasons feminist intellectuals stay in the church is because polygamy gives them something to gnaw over for decades without ever losing interest, so I understand that the few tentative lines on this website can hardly compass all you’ve said and thought on the subject.  I have no bold conclusion to make on this.  I offer no justification or condemnation of the practice here, and plead only for everyone to recognize that every polygamist in history, male or female, has been nothing more than a human being, and more than a few made a success of their lives and blessed the lives of others.

I am rather curious to see how it all works out in The Kingdom.

Well... My hubby and I are well into season 2 of Big love and things are going from innocent to dark.

There's a lot going on, but I want to focus on one concept coming into play.    "Collecting"

When someone has the 'moral license" to marry more than one spouse, when does it end?  For Bill, he's starting to flirt with other women - and at least in the series quite ignoring the 3 wives waiting for him at home.  I think throughout our lives we always meet interesting people.  When one marries in a monogamous marriage, we know that even though so and so is fascinating, we have our one and only.  We don't cross the line and even think of going there (or if we do... affairs and divorce are in our future). 

But what of those who feel morally obligated to continue to look for more spouses because of this notion that they should marry more?  I don't think Bill even understands 2 of his 3 wives.  They are neglected and he rarely takes time to make them feel special.  They just pump out his kids (who he ignores even more) His first wife is the strong one (as I mentioned in an earlier post) - she's out doing her own thing.  But the younger two have drama and issues in their lives because of how empty they are.  And here goes Bill looking at a potential fourth wife.  It reminds me of a collector.  "Ooh... she's interesting/sexy/sweet/insert adjective here... I want her and my wives will deal with it!".   If I was 'supposed' to take multiple husbands - I would always be on the lookout for another flavor (even though in the end, my heart is still bonded to only one.)  Any man I'd run across I'd be sizing him up as a potential mate.  It's such a collecting stance and I don't think Bill can stop the attitude.  One thing that makes Bill different than most polygamists is he is a free agent.  In compounds men only get new wives by their loyalty to the 'prophet' and their servitude.  Bill isn't limited by that so he's now looking..  which really bugs me because he should have just stayed with his equal - his first wife.  In the end I think Bill's brother says it best.  "Men who want to have more than one wife are just selfish."

(WARNING: spoiler alert if you haven't seen Season 1 episodes 1-5)

Someone suggested my hubby and I watch Big Love from Netflix.  So we have 3 disks here waiting to be viewed.  Last night we watched the first disk and couldn't help ourselves from watching the second disk.

The whole mess of the Polygamy issue with the Church has always bugged me.  I did pro-bono work for Tapestry Against Polygamy when Tom Hanks was just putting out feelers about starting this series.  The ladies at TAP were worried it would be glamorized, and seeing it, in a way it is.. BUT...

The whole show has a surface glamour, but deeper is the mess and darker side of polygamy.  The main characters are not FLDS, although one wife is from there, being a 'warren jeffs prophet daughter.  Anyway, the FLDS type characters show off all the issues currently being experienced about little girls and such - but they are side characters.  The main characters are secular, not church going, and modern.  The thing is... I believe this show (so far at least) also shows a universal truth:  One's heart is bonded to ONE person more than any other.

With Polygamy, a wife of Brigham Young said "You can't LOVE your husband, you respect him, be kind to him, but don't be close to him - that is how Polygamy works best."  She counciled sisters struggling with it to "go live their lives and be independent of the husband - to not grow close to him."  And it would seem that if a woman didn't want that pair bonding and simply wanted a man to show up once a week, then it may be the way to go.  Another case for polygamy which is hinted at in Big Love, is is that the women can pair bond with each other instead.  A friend of the main character has 3 wives, two of which were playing secret footsy under a table and giggling.  If ladies who prefer the company of ladies, then polygamy is a great cover!

Lastly, the main character finally realizes in episode 5 that his first wife of 16 years is his equal.  His other two younger wives aren't.  He has an "affair' with his first wife.  Sneaking off on the wrong days, going to motels, leaving her presents, realizing that all along - he is "IN LOVE" with her. 

It shows the harm to the other two women.  It's not fair to them and he just doesn't understand them like a husband should.  This whole series shows to me that Polygamy, even when you remove the funky clothes, hair and pedophilia, does not work for one's heart.  In the end, you always love one person the most and that is the person you long for.  Even when one tries to be 'fair' and equal, well... it just doesn't happen.  Anger is hidden and pain is shown is so many different ways.  The 2nd wife is $60K in debt from shopping - she drowns herself with 'things'.  The 3rd wife is a 'babysitter' and treated as such.  Even though all 4 of the group tries to love eachother, it's just not fulfilling.  Even William struggles with feeling close to all of them.  His heart is with only one, but he tries to hide it.  What kind of emotional schizophrenia must he be going through.  It must be painful, because in a way it's so fake to have sex and profess being 'in love' with ones not your equal.

I think Nikki and Marge (the two younger wives) deserve the kind of kindred spirit bonding that the Barb (the first wife) has with William.  They deserve a kindred to bond to, their very own.  We all do.

Normally, a post like this contrary to the views of the creators of this site.  That is exactly why I'm posting this for Fidel - a Guest poster.  His opinions will spark a fresh debate about what it means to be libertarian.  Fidel was invited to be a part of this blog because his beliefs are usually so contrary to mine.  I love that we can all offer differing viewpoints without censorship.  This post is Fidel's creation and I'd love to see some responses to it.  - Lisey

MORMON COMMUNISM
But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.

—2 Nephi, 26:31
The Book of Mormon

What a god-awful hour, Dear Reader, to be gotten up to go to work on a Collective Farm!

Sure, okay, since Brother Bob had first left on his Mission to save the heathens of Denver and Dovecreek, Colorado, I had "helped" on numerous occasions with Mother's private garden plot; and, I confess, during the dreaded Fishing Season, I often roused myself up quite early in the morning when alerted by the bated breath and chatter outside my basement window of the Bird Kids, armed with flashlights and tin cans before dawn, poaching our nightcrawlers as the poor little defenseless things lay flaccid and relaxing unawares on the wet grass, basking in the moonbeams...  I would then leap out of bed and run up the stairs and courageously yell through the backdoor screen: "Leave our worms alone!" and those Early Bird Kids would then be all terrified and surprised, their flashlights running away, bobbing like giant fireflies...

So, I can do a Good Turn, even when it's very early and still dark out (such as rescuing the little worms that would then safely dive back into their darker holes) but please! don't anyone ever ask of me any pre-dawn deeds of Derring-do for the likes of some bristling Sugar Beets!  But Come To Think Of It I hadn't been asked, as I climbed into the backseat of Gene's Plymouth, clutching my Thermos Bottle and the rather Desperate Hope for some Engine Trouble that might in some way spare me from the early morning rigors of working on the Mormon Stake Collective Farm...

The Mormon Work Ethic.  Mormons are fed with it from birth.  They have it droning industriously in their ears like those swarms of frenzy you can hear from the dome-shaped helioports of their mascot Bees, their "Deserets" as they call them.  Howard Hurges and IBM both agree, there is no more loyal and profitable a chattel than a Mormon on the Block of Wage-Slavery—they'll feel positively guilty about whatever pittance they're given, these peculiar adherents to an even more peculiar religion; and they will work all day and all night for their Masters and Miss'ums.

Quickly Gene cast me such a feverish look over his shoulder over the Naugahyde-covered front seat of his Plymouth that I really can't recall anything quite so Obsessed since years before I had watched Father kill the bandy rooster that was also awake at Four A.M. in the Morning.  Father burned the midnight taper at both ends, drank coffee and letched Overtime; but then Gene's present fiendish demeanor could hardly be explained by a mere overdose of caffeine...

Contrasting with Gene's evident fever of excitement to get going and do some hoeing, the Ward Bishop, a staid insurance broker on weekdays and a pastor of the same gullible flock he had fiducialily shorn in the evenings and on weekends, sat quietly in the passenger seat, dressed in faded but impeccably clean overalls, his head nodding down on his barrel chest showing a naked expanse of bulldog neck.  I could tell he was sleeping and didn't feel sorry for him one bit.  In fact, I only wished I was big enough to cuff him.  After all, it was his Big Idea to drag me along in the first place.
Gene leered excessively, turned the key in the ignition and pumped the gas pedal and—choke! alas!—started the engine.  The stiff gears soon had us lurching away from the fire hydrant and simultaneously brought the Bishop's elbows up in a startled hoedown position.  But soon Sleepy was fast at it again, and nodding his head rhythmically against the window while his arms continued involuntarily twitching, as if he was merely rowing a boat up the River Lethe, i.e., the Bishop—of all people—should have sneaked a cup of Caffeine!

"Hey you!  Wake-up!" I refrained from saying, and instead settled back for some despondent observation of the advent of another grim dawn in Mormonland: the moon glow evaporating as quickly as the myriad stars were disappearing, and over the ragged hunchbacks of the easterly mountains, the Sun like a Gladiator was casting rosy, then increasingly fiery darts.
There was hardly any other traffic out until we began to converge on the Collective Farm, which was situated out Riverton way, where my Mother had her "roots", where Sugar beets flourished, and where senile Doc Sorenson had been recently buried by his Buxom Nurse...

Turning off the main highway, the Plymouth bumped a while down a rutted dirt road, catching up with the rearend of a Rancho station wagon, which I immediately recognized by the dents as belonging to Brother and Sister MacDonald.  Soon there appeared on our left a big painted sign before this stark little frame house and a parking lot full of other automobiles. 

The sign read:

Granite Stake Farm: A Project of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Groups of earlier arrivals had already disembarked their vehicles and had the farmhouse surrounded like in a movie where the mob wants to burn it.  Most had short-handled hoes in their hands, while others wielded spades and pitchforks.  The Mob raised a throaty cry at our arrival, cheering on the Bishop, who was finally awake now and ready to head his Foraging Congregation.  I climbed out cautiously after Gene and the Bishop.  Smiling, the Bishop then quelled the cheering with a grandiloquent wave of his hand and the admonition: "Let us pray."  And immediately the mob became uniformly quiet and bowed their heads and Gene offered the Benediction, invoking Safety from Snakebites in the ditches, Divine Guidance in our manual labors, Preservation from the Stinging nettle, etc.  Then, in a an outburst of emotional ethusiasm that seemed equally shared by all the petitioners (All Save One) the Bishop added: "God Bless God's Sugar Beets!!!"  With that, the multitude ejaculated: "Amen!", cheered again, then disbanded, rushing for the fields. 

I stood there, A Statue With A Thermos Bottle amongst the tumultuous Scattering, but Sister LeSeur recognized me instantly and stopped to chat, dressed rather too fashionably, I thought, in pink pastel pedal-pushers and pearl button earrings—too fashionable to seriously intend to do much weeding, though she carried a hoe.

"Where's your Mother?" she asked eagerly.

"Oh, she had to take Carol to School," I answered, even somewhat wistfully.  (As a matter-of-fact, Mother that day did indeed need to freight Carol to School, for Carol was giving her first John Phillip Sousa Tuba Recital.  Like my own miseries, you see, her Musical Talents were simply escalating!)

"Too bad," commended Sister LeSeur ruefully, "You Mother was real fast in those Sugar Beets.  Well, why don't you come and help me and Kathy?"

"Kathy's here?" I asked doubtfully, having thought that Kathy, the Brigitte Bardot of the neighborhood, would be safely away at Beautician School.

"She's here somewhere," said Sister LeSeur, clutching her throat, where she had forgotten to wear her necklace, and looking about for her daughter with that nervous insecure glance that a woman often has when she thinks she's misplaced her cultured pearls.  "Oh, there she is!  Come with us!"

And there Kathy was, on the edge of the field, eyeshadow glaring violets in that early sun, a peasant girl's scarf tied over her bleached-blonde tresses, a colorful peasant girl's skirt about her slim hips and summer thongs on her bare feet with the toenails brightly painted a jungle-red.

"Mother," said Kathy, tossing down her hoe, "It's muddy out there!"

"Well, Fidel's here to help us!"

I gave them both an aggrieved look.

Then, we stood there a few minutes like The Three Graces, while all about us, from the field, you could hear happy gospel singing—along with the sucking sound of shoes being pulled out of the irrigation mud and the thud-thud-thudding of the hoes.  The rows of sugar beets needing weeding and thinning were so long from where we stood that it seemed like you could almost see the curvature of the Earth...

In Communist Cuba, I know we are making the bratty sons and daughters of the Bourgeois Classes harvest the Sugar Cane.  And it is the same if you are a Mormon in Utah!

There is an absolutely FASCINATING blog currently showing on Times & Seasons of the Bloggernacle regarding "Master Status".  I love any blog that makes me think and might open up new doors of understanding, and Craig's blog does just that!

 Master status refers to the ways in which we define ourselves in life--and more importantly, how we interact with others based on their chosen "master statuses". 

 Please take a look and let me know what you think!

http://www.timesandseasons.org/

Cyn

There was an interesting statement made in a prior post: to paraphrase "the church today is not Joseph's church".  I totally agree with that and have mixed feelings about it.  I would be interested in hearing others' feelings.

In the early church, according to David Whitmer, the members had actual voting rights regarding doctrine, leadership, etc., in contrast to our mere "sustaining" vote.  Every year in conference, it "appears to be unanimous".  I understand that they cannot take votes on a worldwide Church with membership in the millions, but I guess I dislike intensely the pretence that we have any measure of involvement in leadership when we give our sustaining vote.  It's more that we agree to sustain the people put into power over us....without knowing whom we are sustaining.

Likewise, Joseph instituted a truly pernicious doctrine of polygamy, which has haunted and hurt the church ever since.  I believe that the present day church is more "true" than the church at the end of Joseph's life.  I am grateful the Lord "steadied the ark" and got rid of that doctrine in practice.  I believe eventually, Section 132 will be relegated to an appendix, much like the Lectures on Faith were taken from the D&C and put into an appendix.  The Lecture on Faith were so much more excellent than most other sections, I often wonder why they were taken out.

If you want an interesting read from a member of the early church, please see the website below, and read David Whitmer's 80-page defense of the Book of Mormon.

http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1880s-1890s/1887Whit.htm

Cyn

This was originally posted on my blog on June 8, 2008.

In the last week or so, it has become clear to me that the basic understanding quite a few people have of libertarianism is that of greed and selfishness. This surprises me because I thought most people had us figured for proponents of legalized marijuana and prostitution.

In truth, there are as many factions to libertarianism as there are people who identify as such. Get ten libertarians in a room and you’ll get 11 opinions that span not only a spectrum across an idealogy, but span the spectra of idealogies.

There is one thing that unites us, however, and that is the belief in choice. Sometimes, as in the case of abortion, whose choice is up for debate, but in the end, libertarians want to be able to choose how they live their lives without having their homes raided by overzealous religious bigots in the form of Child Protective Services, without having their businesses regulated to such an extent that they are hamstrung, without having their earnings stolen straight out of their paychecks.

In Abraham 4:1, a plan was presented and a son of God said, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.” Then Christ offered his plan and the glory to the Father. The Father goes on to tell Abraham in verse 3, “Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down.”

This concept is our gospel. It’s the fulcrum of what we as Latter-day Saints believe and why. Without this, we’d be just another protestant religion albeit with some seriously weird kinks.

I made the point over at Feminist Mormon Housewives that compulsory taxation for the purpose of giving it to other individuals in our society was antithesis to the gospel, the gospel of agency, which is to say, the ability to choose between good and evil. In return, it was brought to my attention that the actual point was not that Lucifer had proposed this plan, but that he wanted the glory. Yet God makes it very clear that Satan’s greater sin was that he “sought to destroy the agency of man.”

Our Creator’s goal is to bring all of us home again…with caveat: That we actually learn something.

And there’s the sticky wicket. One cannot learn the principle of anything by compulsion. One doesn’t learn generosity by having money taken from his paycheck arbitrarily and given to someone else, no matter how much the someone else needs it. The choice to be generous on our own, to provide for our weakest with that money, has been stripped from us.

Obviously, libertarians wouldn’t have a problem with some measure of taxation because things do need to be paid for: roads, bridges, fire, police, water treatment, a military. Oh, you know, those things that establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. There are better ways to collect those funds than via the IRS, but that’s another six posts. However, I will not deny that they are vital to the successful running of a country and everyone needs to share in that cost.

Of course, I know what most of the first jumping off point of this post will be, because it’s used (either disingenuously or ignorantly) as the first point of dissent in the debate: promoting the general welfare, which has been used to justify enormous charitable Congressional expenditures since the New Deal. So let’s get that out of the way right now.

James Madison put this succinctly enough in the third session of Congress in 1794, when an expedition of French refugees had arrived from the Haitian Revolution, and Congress sought $15,000 for their aid. This is the quote from the annals:

“Mr. Madison wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes very different from those of charity. He acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Furthermore, Mr. Madison said, “The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” [Italics mine.]

So, yeah, one of the geniuses behind the Constitution didn’t think it was such a good idea.

Whew. Now, with that addressed, I’ll conclude my original point:

If we believe in a gospel of agency, then having our earnings taken from us to be given to someone else is denial of agency. Thus, the redistribution of wealth via compulsory taxation is, by definition of our gospel, evil.