Skip to main content

What is it about bedtime that makes one begin to spout deep philosophical ideas on rather controversial topics? Is it the quiet calm of that time of evening? Is it the brain’s way of decompressing after a day of overuse (or under-use)? Maybe it’s just the toothpaste. What do they put in that stuff? At any rate, I find that most of my light bulbs go off somewhere between the time that I slip into my pjs and the time that I collapse onto my bed, unable to do anything that is not essential to my survival such as breathing.

I suppose I am not the only person whose mind functions in this way, as I am rarely spouting philosophy just to myself. Thank goodness. In fact, my favorite philosophical discussion was prompted by my roommate, whose moments of brilliance seem somehow related to the memory foam on her mattress. I should look into getting some for myself.

“You know what’s weird?” she said, suddenly sitting bolt upright as she waited for me to turn out the lights.

“No clue,” I said.

I have learned that “You know what’s weird?” means I should brace myself for a mind-blowing nugget of wisdom, but even so, I was surprised by the adrenaline that shot through my veins as the words she said set off a chain reaction in my brain—one that made me want to pull out my laptop and type until I had put down every thought on metaphorical paper. Because she and I cannot recall who said what in the conversation that followed, I will just present the whole thing, and give my roommate the credit, since it really is her brainchild.

What’s weird, as my roommate said, is how the world perceives polygamy. And not just the world, but even members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, whose heritage is polygamy. Yet, in LDS culture, (please note the distinction between culture and Church) we are offended or put off by polygamy much the same as the rest of the world is. We try not to talk about it. We shove it under the rug. To take that a step further, like the rest of the world, we look upon other cultures that currently participate in polygamy as immoral, strange and wrong.

Or maybe we just think of it as barbaric and archaic. After all, the Bible was written thousands of years ago…so I guess we can’t justify it with that alone? But here’s the kicker: If polygamy is defined as a man being sexually active with more than one woman concurrently, then polygamy still happens everywhere, all the time—yes, in Hollywood, in Congress, and even in the White House! In fact, the place it probably happens the least frequently is among Mormons who practice abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity within marriage. Ironic.

The concept of a man being with more than one woman is hardly foreign to any culture—especially mainstream American culture. If you don’t agree, just go to the movies. Why is society so troubled by the polygamist who actually commits to the women with whom he has sexual relationships, while it is more than comfortable with, accepting of, and even immune to the idea of a man who has multiple sexual relationships without any sort of commitment whatsoever?

Which is more shameful: a man who fathers a child out of wedlock because he prefers not to assume the responsibility and be tied down to one woman, or a man who fathers children with several wives, where he assumes full responsibility and commits to the women? While society doesn’t exactly praise a man for shirking his fatherly responsibilities, it is ironic that the man who has more than one wife is labeled a  nymphomaniac, whereas the man who sleeps with several women over the course of a few weeks gets a pat on the back. Now I ask, who is the real nymphomaniac? The family man, or the man who wants sex with no strings attached?

Let us be clear on one thing. I am not defending forced polygamy. I am not condoning the forced marriages of women (particularly minors) to older men who then oppress them, abuse them, and treat them as slaves. This is wrong, wrong, wrong. And here is the crucial distinction that so many people neglect to point out: That is NOT the same kind of polygamy in which The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints participated.

The polygamy that took place in the early days of the Church was established primarily for the sake of providing for the women, who, in those days, had little opportunity to provide for themselves. Polygamy, for them, was VOLUNTARY, and it was all about responsibility and commitment. Many of the men agreed to it with heavy hearts, merely because they felt it was the right thing to do. Not because they needed to assert power over women, or because one woman was not adequate for their sexual needs.

In 2010, I had the opportunity to spend a few months in the Middle East, where I spoke to a large number of people of varying religious, cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Among these people were polygamists. When I say they were polygamists, it doesn’t mean that they were necessarily practicing polygamy. It merely means that they were from cultures and religions where polygamy is an option—a legitimate way of life. Were they weird? Not at all. In fact, many of the men joked with me about how they couldn’t imagine trying to keep more than one woman happy. In many cases, for them, polygamy is still used as a means of taking care of the women who cannot care for themselves.

So is polygamy really that [insert whatever adjective people use to describe it]? I can’t say that I am in favor of the practice, but at the same time, I believe we should respect it as a legitimate and even moral way of life so long as it is does/did not infringe upon the liberty or human rights of the persons involved.

I know that I personally would rather not marry than have to share my husband with another woman. I cannot imagine anything so difficult as that. In fact, I am rather in awe of my great, great, great grandmothers who were so unselfish that they were willing to share their husbands rather than to allow their friends or sisters to be alone or impoverished. Polygamy was truly a Christian sacrifice for them. And perhaps, like so many other prejudices, our distaste for it today is founded in fear and lack of understanding.

Now please excuse me while I go research toothpaste ingredients and consumer reports on memory foam mattresses.

-Catie

7 Comments

  • Amanda Hughes says:

    Good points! I agree with you. I also think it’s important to distinguish between actual consensual polygamy between adults and child abuse. I have also thought that those who are argue for equal rights and gay marriage could make the exact arguments for voluntary polygamous marriage.

  • Nathan says:

    Wow, that was an awesome article. If you could get that message out, maybe people wouldn’t think our history was so weird.

  • Amber Nielsen says:

    Interesting thoughts, but I want to point out one significant error in your opening arguement:

    Regarding your definition of polygamy, you state, “If polygamy is defined as a man being SEXUALLY ACTIVE with more than one woman concurrently, then polygamy still happens everywhere, all the time—yes, in Hollywood, in Congress, and even in the White House!”

    Actually, polygamy is NOT defined that way. Polygamy is defined as, “The practice or custom of having more than one WIFE OR HUSBAND at the same time.”

    Having more than one sexual partner at the same time does not make someone a polygamist. Polygamy is strictly about having more than one spouse at the same time – hence the term, “plural marriage.”

    I think it’s important to clarify that polygamy is NOT happening everywhere, all the time – in Hollywood, Congress, and the White House, as you have argued. That is cheating or adultery, and is still morally wrong to most (especially to those in the LDS faith)…but it’s NOT polygamy.

  • Marc Salsnet says:

    To Amber Nielsen

    I think you are missing the point. I’m sure that the author of this blog understands the definition of polygamy. The point is that polygamy involves commitment, and promiscuity does not. Sex with multiple woman with commitment, or sex with multiple women without commitment. Which is more noble? They basically are the same thing except polygamy accepts the responsibility. Don’t miss the main idea by getting fixated on the latin roots of the word.

  • iam4virtue says:

    Excellent Catie!!!

  • Pat says:

    Good article, although, like Amber, I disagree with certain aspects of it. For one, the definition used is not the true definition of the word polygamy and as a result forces a thought process through out the rest of the article that is contrary to the meaning of the word. I believe that Amber has a fantastic job of analyzing this, so I will leave it be. That aside, I don’t know that I agree with your assertion that the purpose of the practice of plural marriage “was established primarily for the sake of providing for the women”. I believe that it was established for two purposes, with the care of the women being a byproduct of those two. First, it was to bring about a restoration of all things in the dispensation of the fullness of times (meaning, all prior practices that pertained to the gospel of Christ – and not the Mosaic Law – had to be brought back to the earth in their full and true form; see Ephesians 1:10, cross referenced to D&C 132). Second, it was the raise a people up onto the Lord. As Jacob taught the people of Nephi, “For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none…For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things,” (Jacob 2:27, 30). Think of how many of our church leaders, both past and present, are descendants from polygamist relationships! Think of how much strength the church gained from having an enlarged membership that then allowed it to weather storms of trials and tribulations, take the gospel to the world, and colonize the west. Surely the purposes of the Lord were not limited to caring for women who had little opportunity to care for themselves! Although an added benefit, I don’t believe it can be said authoritatively that this is all that happened. I believe that we wrongfully abhor the practice today for the very reasons you pointed out, but I don’t believe that we should abhor it lest we abhor that which the Lord has established. What would happen if tomorrow the Lord’s programme changed and we were expected to accept and begin living polygamy? We should always be careful not to call righteousness and evil the same thing. I think you did a decent job of distinguishing between the two, but by calling violations of the law of chastity “polygamy” when it is not, it comes across that you maybe are calling them both evil.

  • Catie says:

    Wow, I didn’t think I would generate a dialogue with this! I’m glad! Thanks for your feedback. I think you all raised some interesting points. Amber, you are certainly right about the technical definition of polygamy. I wasn’t attempting to get technical, but rather conceptual. However, that’s valuable feedback in case I attempt to publish this article in other venues. And Pat, I also appreciate your insight. While you raise excellent points, I didn’t want to get quite that deep into the history of polygamy in the Church as the main point I was attempting to make was more centered around the psychology of how people in general view polygamy. I think it’s great to get a discussion going on this! Keep it coming!

Leave a Reply