If there was also an allowance for polyandry or a mixed polyandry/polygamy household, along with zero opposition to same-sex relationships, I would not be opposed to polygamy. So long as everyone in the group is a co-equal and nobody is subservient to anyone, and all parties are above 18 years of age, why would I care who is partnered with who? It’s not abuse so long as all are of equal status, able to divorce and remarry as they may wish to do, free of coercion. My main disagreement with polygamy is simply the manifestations of it as they have appeared historically, where women were of lesser status than men, and where everything assumed a strict heterosexual model. If we widened the circle, to allow all persons to freely enter and freely leave any relationship they desire, that would be better than a rigidly exclusive model
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I suspect the biggest problem is how to construct divorce laws. It's already complicated with two persons, imagine what happens with more! Now that's not a reason not to do it, but it's obviously rather tricky. Anyway, I agree, from a moral/ethical point of view, as long as it's all consenting adults, I see no reason not to allow it. I suspect at that point, we'd have to handle marriages more like corporations of some kind - otherwise, there are far too many relations to consider (2 people, 1 relationship; 3, 3; 4, 6; 5, 10; 6, 15; 7, 21; ...; 10, 45; 20, 190; and so forth at n(n-1)/2. And that's only pairs. If you look at any possible subgroup, it's 2^n instead (10 people already have 1024 subgroups). So basing the legalese directly about people relationships is going to get insane.
@@creamwobblyone set of smelly feet and socks is enough to deal with. Otherwise polyandry may have its appeal. But finding two men who clean up after themselves? They might not be interested in a wife.
Polygamy persisted among the ostensibly Christian Frankish elites during the Merovingian period in France, though the Church worked to discourage the practice (while also trying to convert all the remaining Arianist German kings to Catholicism). I'm pretty sure it was out of favour by the Carolingian period.
The Church allowed morganatic marriages well past the Carolingian period, which arguably made polygamy much worse for the majority of women in morganatic relationships due to the removal of inheritance rights from their offspring.
@@KaiHenningsenWhat is interesting is a that Smith’s polygamy was never biblically based, where most of his other teaching s attempted to find biblical justification. This is one of the rare moments where he had an original thought.
So rather than 'one man, one woman" being "Biblical" marriage, it was rather more Greco-Roman marriage. I know some churches around where I live that would probably not revise their roadside signs to update that...
That's right. Nowadays biblical marriage is illegal for several reasons. What those churches do is select verses that happen to exemplify aspects of what they want marriage to be, create a narrative that stitches them together, and call it "biblical" just because they quoted the Bible.
Also, there's that pesky biological issue of comparable birthrates for men and women. For every polygamist wife, there is (in theory) a single guy out there somewhere.
Marriage and polygamy are social and legal constructs. I have doubts that humans have stopped being fundamentally promiscuous despite the promotion of monogamy as an ideal. Living longer lives makes this more apparent.
I thought polygamy went out of fashion because so many wives were divorcing one husband, ie. Solomon and the alimony payments got to be too much, and he had to file for bankruptcy!
I wonder about the economic response - in the ancient world, having a lot of wives (or concubines or both) was an indicator of wealth and power. But in an industrialized society, there is little advantage that way (although the elite seem to practice serial monogamy more than non-elites). However, now we are seeing a rise in polyamorous households - could that be a response to housing costs and in a few decades or centuries, it will be seen as 'normal'?
I think the earliest flat out condemnation of polygamy by Christians was in mid-late second century to early third century in various patristic writings. Tertullian is one example. As far as I know monogamy was the practice of the Roman Empire and likely had something to do with it.
Yes, but also the early Church was even more anti-sex than most current ones, so limiting the number of people Christians were copulating with was probably also a factor.
Considering that polygamy pops up everywhere in different cultures all around the world it would be interesting to understand why the Romans didn’t practice it.
@@pansepot1490 It's likely a complicated topic but surely had to do with inheritance and Augustus' views on what was moral. It also was not monogamy is a sexual sense. Roman enslaved way too many people for that to even be common.
Polygamy seems to evolve as a response to social conditions. In polyandrous societies it is frequently a response to land shortage whilst polygyny is often caused by wealth imbalance, where many men cannot afford to support a family wives sharing a husband is an obvious solution. Even where and when the practice is banned, men having unofficial wives, aka mistresses, became common. Occasionally we find gender imbalance as a cause, either due to war or a tradition of men or women migrating for work and leaving a skewed population behind. Religious and philosophical justifications appear to follow rather than lead.
Funny, but wrong. Dowries made the initial outlay _negative,_ but upkeep would bankrupt ya (I'm making light of it because that part was millennia ago, and part of a freakish resource-rich bronze age agricultural society. More recent polygyny is a misogynist practice that seeks to undervalue and undermine women's independence.)
Considering that Biblical laws have their roots in the Bronze age, there's an often overlooked argument to make in favor of polygamy. I have found researchers who estimate the replacement reproduction rate in the Bronze age Levant to be around 10 - meaning each human family had to bear an average of ten children to keep their population from declining. Infant/child mortality was probably somewhere between 30% - 50%. And bearing ten children only keeps your population from declining - if you want it to actually increase, you have to have more than ten. And a woman's childbearing period was shorter than it is now - menarche was around 16. Not to mention there was no such thing as prenatal care or sterilization - having ten kids under those circumstances is not at all the same as having ten kids now. Men can have children much more quickly than women. A man with two wives can have more children than a woman with two husbands. By allowing men wealthy enough to feed and clothe a very large family to build such a family in half the time, you aid your population growth. Fun side fact: polygamy is technically still permissible in Judaism. But only if you live in a country whose laws permit it. There was a rabbi who issued an injunction against polygamy, but his injunction was only set to last for a thousand years, so it's expired now.
I don't know about the bronze age, but one of the things we observe in Mormon history is that polygamist families had less children per woman. While the number of children a singular man produced was increased, his time and resources were divided. A woman under polygamy didn't become pregnant more than a woman with a single partner. This resulted in big dynastic families, but didn't do much for population growth. It also decreased the number of young women available to the young men, causing a lot of men to leave the community and decreasing genetic variation. I realize a nineteenth century group would look very different from people who lived 5000 years before them. Noticeably, polygamy was rarer in most bronze age people groups, while in Mormonism it was practiced by a large portion of the community.
It might also be worth pointing out that polygamy still exists in other non-Christian cultures, along with matriarchal societies that have multiple husbands. We should not make the mistake of thinking the Judaeo-Christian traditions of the west are in any way inherently correct or better, they are simply more familiar to us.
It depends how you measure "correct or better". If you measure it by the slow advancement of women's rights (and men's rights as well) then western society is superior. It is hard to see how woman's rights could have advanced as they have in a polygamous society.
@@Nonplused Granted, but in a polyandrous society women's right are to the fore and it is men who lose out, at least by our standards. My point was that our familiarity with one way shouldn't blind us to other options or make us think those options are in some way wrong.
@@theoutspokenhumanist Nope, I'm going to think they are "inferior", based on my subjective view of what the goals are. For me, they are equality under the law, freedom of speech, innocence until proven guilty, security in your person from encroachment by the state, and property rights. Equality under the law makes it hard to see how either polygamy or polyandry can work. Actually it violates property rights too, or at least dramatically complicates them. A husband and wife can co-own things and split the assets when they divorce, but how do you handle that if there are 3 parties to the marriage? Anyway, I realize morals can be seen as subjective, but I am with Aristotle. Morality has as its main objective the increase of human happiness. Therefore any morality that subjugates people whether by unequal rights for women (or men), slavery, persecution, suppression of speech, etc. I am against. Sure it might increase happiness for the man with two wives, but that man's happiness has to be tallied against two very unhappy women who do not have equal rights. Same as slavery might make the slave owners happy, but the overall happiness total is down once you count how happy the slaves are. There is no way to be open minded enough to accept slavery just because it is occurring in a different culture (as it still does to this day). Polygamy is the same. The greatest moral ever put forward is attributed to Jesus, which is to "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Mencius put it in the reverse but the message is consistent, "Do not do to others as you would not have them do to you." Combining these two, we can conclude that any man who would take two wives but not also be equally happy being one of two husbands to a single woman, knows in his heart that what he does is wrong. Objectively. Even if his revulsion to being one of two husbands is subjective.
@@Nonplused Great to learn your views. Thank you. A couple of things. Firstly, you used the word subjective and of course that’s fine. We are all allowed to hold our own subjective opinions. But that is different from an objective truth determined by data. I would also point out that your judgements are all based upon values set by our culture and traditions. They are therefore all relevant, and accurate, if multiple partner relationships were practiced within our culture. But they are not necessarily true if seen within different cultures. This is precisely where we must be careful not to think we are just better. Our reasoning must be objective, not subjective. As for the criteria, I tend to agree with your analysis. I was speaking solely about the western tradition of pairing up one man and one woman, with the male always being the senior partner and the female being subservient. This role allocation has mellowed over recent decades but still exists. There are, as you said, many ways to look at the situation but the goals you mention are secondary to the tradition itself. I.e. the western marriage tradition is not justified by use of those goals but by appeal to other reasoning, often based on religion or what we just imagine is the natural order. I think it’s important to realise that whilst your criticism of polygamy or polyandry, with regard to property rights, is true if it were practiced in our society. Where it is still practiced, these issues are not relevant, because other traditions exist within these cultures to overcome such difficulties. I largely agree with you, and Aristotle, regarding the purpose of morals. I think they evolved within our early ancestors to facilitate living in larger groups and were originally based upon the reciprocation found within family groups; still visible in our primate cousins. But we must be careful when using such terms as subjugation. This again is a subjective determination. For example, I view Muslim women as subjugated because they are granted less rights in every respect than their male counterparts and yet Muslim women refuse this. For them, because their whole culture is based upon Islam, the gender roles are as they should be, by God’s will. Are they subjugated if they do not think so? For me, yes. Do I have the right to impose my values on them? No. Your view of the happiness of people in a relationship of three or more people is based upon western ideas of what makes people happy. To us, equality is important but to others, this may be offset by having another person to share work and responsibility or just to talk to when the person of the other sex is being unreasonable. Sociology has shown us that such arrangements do work and people are happy, because they were not raised and indoctrinated into our way of thinking. Equating such relationships to slavery is simply false. Slaves have no rights. People in polygamous or polyandrous relationships, within a culture which is based around such arrangements, do have rights and, relevant to that culture, probably just as many rights as we have. The Golden Rule existed long before Jesus. Our earliest example is from Egypt around 2000 BCE but it is found in all human cultures. Because it is common sense. I agree that a man with two wives would almost certainly not be equally happy being one of two husbands. But that is irrelevant. If that man was raised and lived in a culture in which having two wives was the norm, he would never find himself as a secondary husband. It’s all about the wider culture. I hope I have demonstrated that whilst everything you have said is true, within our culture, the types of relationships we are discussing do not exist there, as a norm, and so any value judgments we make must be relevant to the culture in which they do exist. We cannot simply apply our values as if other people think or feel as we do. In other words, whilst our opinions may be subjective, the reality is not.
@@theoutspokenhumanist Well, I was intentionally intermixing "subjective" and "objective" because I find those distinctions blurry at best. Even "objectively" looking at "data" can be subjective because data selection is a thing. One man looks at temperature data for example and sees a horrifying trend, another looks at it and sees nothing outside the standard variation. I am aware that "Do unto others" may not have been original to Jesus. That's why I said it was "attributed" to him. For all we know he never said anything in the Gospels, they were written at least 70 years after his death so far as we know. Still, I like to look at the teachings without the man and see if they hold water. We don't really know Mencius actually wrote all of his works either. But we say Mencius because that's how the package came down to us. To me, the ultimate test of any system is whether it "works". If the goal is to land a rocket and reuse it, whatever Musk is doing is "working". So then his rocket system is "better" than the other current systems. Same with morals and human happiness. So far (although it is under threat), western society has achieved levels of happiness on a mass scale never before even contemplated by any other society. Therefore I can say that western society is "objectively" better, even though happiness itself is "subjective". That said, another man might say my criteria of equal rights, freedom, and escape from poverty are the incorrect measures and that they are subjective. The only time polygamy or polyandry increases happiness so far as I can tell is when there is a shortage of either women or men. So it seems to be an intermediate peak to deal with some sort of crisis. For example, if many of the men are getting killed in battle, it makes sense that the survivors need to pick up the slack when it comes to getting the women pregnant, or the loss of fighting men would translate into a population disaster for the tribe. But that doesn't make it ideal. In the case of polyandry, we are only talking about one or two small tribes discovered in Africa which we have decided to call "cultures" for the sake of argument, and it's never been explained (at least I didn't see it) what happened to all the women. Died in childbirth? Infanticide? I don't know. But if there were more women I think we can safely assume the number of husbands would drop proportionately. There is no way one woman could dominate many men while other women go unloved and single. Men just don't function that way. If there is a sexual opportunity, they take it, unless it has a high probability of it resulting in serious sanction or punishment. A lot of people hope, largely for their own delusional reasons so far as I can tell, that maybe we could maintain western society and allow polygamy, hoping I guess that they might be the beneficiary. But societies don't work that way. The social construct is a very delicate and finely tuned apparatus that evolves through trial and error, and is then passed down through the collective subconscious. It does change over time as it has, but it can't be designed. Any attempt to design it is bound to end in abject failure and societal collapse. All the nodes are too interconnected. That is why when a God dies, the society that created that God is usually not far behind.
Dan, regarding polygamy, can you explain Deuteronomy 17:16-17? I've heard apologists say this is a condemnation of polygamy. And yet verse sixteen uses the same phrasing to prohibit acquiring many horses. That's a strangely specific prohibition to say a king can only have one horse. Can you explain what it means and this relates to other biblical polygamists like David and Solomon?
It means what it says. The notion that "do not take too many" means "do not take more than one" is absurd. If that was the intent, it would have said so explicitly. Anyone who reads the passage as promoting monogamy is torturing the text.
I mean, like, mathematically polygamy has to be a minority practice. It's impossible that the majority could be practicing polygamy unless there was a big war that killed most of the men or something like that. The numbers just don't work otherwise
That roughly matches up with what I've read elsewhere. One question, was Greek culture always monogamous? I don't recall any myths - which represent the Mycenaean age, so quite early - mention anything other than monogamy.
What about the Samaritan views on polygamy? I haven't been able to find an Samaritan Torah online (preferably an interlinear) to try to study it, but I've heard that there is a verse which in the Jewish Torah forbids a man from marrying his wife's sister instead in the Samaritan Torah forbids him from marrying anyone else at all so long as his wife lives.
Like Moses? Didn't he have two father in laws? It never mentioned his first wife dying, as far as I recall. In Exodus, Moses' father-in-law is initially referred to as "Reuel" (Exodus 2:18) but afterwards as "Jethro" (Exodus 3:1)
Or two names for the same person like jacob/israel.
День назад+2
Polygamy is a lot broader subject than that. "Genetic evidence has demonstrated that a greater proportion of men began contributing to the genetic pool between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago, which suggests that reproductive monogamy became more common at that time."
@@thetopfaceNo, it means that polygamy was actually the norm in human society until fairly recently in our species' history. This may come as a result of the rise of agriculture, as the dates seem to match. Morality would not have been a factor in these societies yet, as the tying of sexual relationships to morality only came about around the Classical era. Something more basic gave rise to more monogamy thousands of years before that.
I've seen those and the rebuttals that show serial monogamy can explain the same results. Bear in mind that we're both using the generic word _polygamy_ when you probably mean _polygyny_ to prop up your dogma.
@@creamwobbly Serial monogamy is actually kinda bs in the context of genetic studies. Humans tend to have a near-even split between male and female births in each generation, so for serial monogamy to result in a high concentration of specific male genes, a lot of other males must have been prevented from having female breeding partners. Either they died out in droves before sexual maturity or the "winning" males got rid of their "contributions" somehow. Socially then, serial monogamy can only have worked in prehistoric human culture through the exact same mechanism as polygamy - or child murder.
Is Paul teaching monogamy when he says women should have her "own" husband or is that just how it seems in most english translations? 1 Corinth 7:2 Also in english it makes sense to see Jesus as condemning polygamy when he condemns men for divorce and remarriage stating it is adultry because the man is still married to the woman in God's eyes. Would we get the same impression if we were to read it in aramaic or greek? Matt 19:9 and Mark 10:11.
I think polygamy was also a practical consideration since there would have been a lower number of men proportional to women then than now. Because of wars dangerous jobs etc. Since the people were the property of the king and the king would have wanted all women to give birth to as many children as possible. In cultures where the exposure of babies wasn't a common practice polygamy would probably be the "next best" sollution to harmonising the loss of young men.
My great grandfather was a Mormon polygamist. It was ugly. Problems among the wives divided the family for generations. When Mormons said they stopped the practice due to revelation to get statehood, they lied and continued to practice it. Eventually, they stopped, and now the main branch of Mormonism excommunicates those who practice it. Was Joseph Smith inspired of God to "restore" the practice or did he desire to have more sex?
I think Dan McClellan talks about in his Mormon Stories interview. He said polygamy was a thing in the Hebrew Bible, but it wasn’t really sanctioned by God as essential for eternal salvation. It was something that just happened at the time, and nobody bat an eye. Going off of that, Joseph Smith either used that as an excuse to get married to a bunch of women or read that and thought “why don’t we do that anymore” and went ahead and started that (maybe even believing that it was revelation). Either case, it’s a practice that is frowned upon in modern society and has been the subject of uncomfortable (but also interesting) conversations with Mormons that distance themselves from such practices.
I’m listening to the Sunstone Podcast and they go into a lot more detail about the history of polygamy in the Church. Safe to say, how they got from doing polygamy to where they are today is a lot more messier than a simple “they stopped an people who didn’t like that they stopped left the Church and started their own” narrative.
Based on the evidence, it's pretty clear Joseph Smith and his cronies were simply doing the same thing that later became a cliché about (male) cult leaders, namely acquiring a harem in all but name only. In other words, less "We are restoring the way God intended us to live" and more "I want to tap that and this is a convenient explanation as to why it's okay and I'm not just a complete douchebag".
Notice how “traditional” polygamy is always a man with multiple wives and never the other way around? It basically relies on keeping women socially downtrodden so they don’t have other options but to accept being in a polygamous relationship for social stability reasons. (Not knocking modern, consenting polyamorous relationships btw).
Who is "we"? Of the first two "marriages" the bible mentions, one had no choice because there weren't other women for Adam to "marry". The second is Lemech, and he is recorded as having two wives. Seems to me that the Bible condones polygamy from the earliest opportunity.
I think if you have to get married, NO Not the eunuchs thing jesus... lol I think you should have to have 2 wives. They need to have someone to talk to. 🙂
The modern mainstream Mormon church has not practiced polygamy for over a hundred years. There are fundamentalist sects that practice it. But they are not part of the mainstream church. So they are not part of the church Fan belongs to any more than a Protestant follows the pope.
God created one singular counterpart for Adam. Marriage is a very solemn institution within Judaism. Most certainly a gift of God. Coupled with the responsibilities of rearing children.
Allowance isn't the same as approval. From the beginning God's definition was one man one woman. Because some people didn't follow this means nothing. God also gave the definition of murder and yet people still did it. So again, allowing something and approving something is a huge difference.
You Mormon pot smokers need to get your definitions straight. 1. MONOTHEISM:, as a term, refers of course to the belief that there is only one God. 2. POLYTHEISM, on the other hand, describes any religious tradition in which there are many gods and goddesses who are the object of worship and devotion. 3. HENOTHEISM, which is the view that there are many gods and goddesses, but one god in particular reigns supreme over all of them, with the others as his assistants or subjects. 4. MONOLTRY, the belief IN and worship of one god, while acknowledging the existence of other gods. ----------- I quote: "Henotheism is similar but less exclusive than monolatry because a monolator worships only one god, while the henotheist may worship any within the pantheon, depending on circumstances.
@@frogmanvc I stand corrected Mormonism is a monalotry then. But why not address me since I made the mistake, not Dan? And I am not Mormon! I do not smoke pot. You are insane and evil.
Hmm... to be taken seriously, when you say "I quote", you really should say who or what you're quoting - for instance A) an expert with an important distinction relevant to the topic, or B) a whack-a-doodle with a jones for irrelevant distractions who is trying to denigrate someone that is trying to communicate effectively to non-experts.
@@johnmcgimpsey1825 Type in the words of the quote onto your internet search box. AI (Joseph Smith), will lead you to the source of my information that I present to all of you pot smokers. Folks who love the Book of Mormon written by a famous MYSTIC.
Marriage in general had several [at least potential] benefits. A single parent [most often a woman] would in theory benefit from having a partner or partners to help in the complexity, intensity and duration of child care. [This of course assumes input from the other partner[s]s and that was not always the case]. Secondly marriage [with sexual fidelity, again if practiced] reduced the spread of sexual diseases. Close bonds with someone you could trust could give security and relief from outside pressures in the world. So there were lots of secular [ie non-religious] reasons why marriage made sense, especially if the "woman as a chattel" was removed from the equation, which took a while to gain traction. In general religion was not a fan of such wild ideas as women being actually being full human beings with rights and stuff. Of course, for women especially, marriage was not really a "volunteer" activity. So hard to figure out why many feminists are not overly keen on marriage, especially in a 'traditional" setting? [sarcasm]
Couldn't polygamy also have been a legal/political arrangement? In many premodern societies, marriage was a type of contract between the husband and the wife's family. 🤔 I forgot my point 😂
I love how Maimonedeez Nuts was the emergency receiver 😆 Great stuff, Dr Dan!
I am just sitting here eating my popcorn, waiting for the “Dan is a Mormon!” crowd to pop in and say hello….
Calling all biblical scholars.
Biblical scholar here. What's your emergency?
Now our spaceships will have to have Emergency Biblical Scholar Holograms.
@@lightbearer313 "Please state the nature of the Biblical emergency."
Light the Biblical Scholar Signal!
It's a Grail shaped Beacon.
@@bskec2177 someone definitely needs to be punished for that!
If there was also an allowance for polyandry or a mixed polyandry/polygamy household, along with zero opposition to same-sex relationships, I would not be opposed to polygamy. So long as everyone in the group is a co-equal and nobody is subservient to anyone, and all parties are above 18 years of age, why would I care who is partnered with who? It’s not abuse so long as all are of equal status, able to divorce and remarry as they may wish to do, free of coercion.
My main disagreement with polygamy is simply the manifestations of it as they have appeared historically, where women were of lesser status than men, and where everything assumed a strict heterosexual model. If we widened the circle, to allow all persons to freely enter and freely leave any relationship they desire, that would be better than a rigidly exclusive model
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I suspect the biggest problem is how to construct divorce laws. It's already complicated with two persons, imagine what happens with more! Now that's not a reason not to do it, but it's obviously rather tricky. Anyway, I agree, from a moral/ethical point of view, as long as it's all consenting adults, I see no reason not to allow it. I suspect at that point, we'd have to handle marriages more like corporations of some kind - otherwise, there are far too many relations to consider (2 people, 1 relationship; 3, 3; 4, 6; 5, 10; 6, 15; 7, 21; ...; 10, 45; 20, 190; and so forth at n(n-1)/2. And that's only pairs. If you look at any possible subgroup, it's 2^n instead (10 people already have 1024 subgroups). So basing the legalese directly about people relationships is going to get insane.
Polygyny vs polyandry. Polygamy is the general term.
@@creamwobbly I stand corrected! Thank you.
@@creamwobblyone set of smelly feet and socks is enough to deal with. Otherwise polyandry may have its appeal. But finding two men who clean up after themselves? They might not be interested in a wife.
@@Plethorality I was thinking of an all gay male group, however, there are some straight men who are known to bathe on occasion. Not many, but a few.
Polygamy persisted among the ostensibly Christian Frankish elites during the Merovingian period in France, though the Church worked to discourage the practice (while also trying to convert all the remaining Arianist German kings to Catholicism). I'm pretty sure it was out of favour by the Carolingian period.
Evidence of it exists among the Norman elites but they probably inherited it from their Norse ancestors.
The Church allowed morganatic marriages well past the Carolingian period, which arguably made polygamy much worse for the majority of women in morganatic relationships due to the removal of inheritance rights from their offspring.
And of course, then Joseph Smith Jr. came along ...
@@KaiHenningsenWhat is interesting is a that Smith’s polygamy was never biblically based, where most of his other teaching s attempted to find biblical justification.
This is one of the rare moments where he had an original thought.
@@digitaljanus Elites simply adjusted to taking unofficial wives, concubines, and mistresses, a practice that has never entirely gone away.
Oh! Finally some info about the 'Husband of one wife' verse! Thanks Dan!
So rather than 'one man, one woman" being "Biblical" marriage, it was rather more Greco-Roman marriage. I know some churches around where I live that would probably not revise their roadside signs to update that...
That's right. Nowadays biblical marriage is illegal for several reasons. What those churches do is select verses that happen to exemplify aspects of what they want marriage to be, create a narrative that stitches them together, and call it "biblical" just because they quoted the Bible.
Love listening to your explanations. So cool.
❤❤❤❤❤ thanks Dan!!!
Also, there's that pesky biological issue of comparable birthrates for men and women. For every polygamist wife, there is (in theory) a single guy out there somewhere.
Something the red pill crowd forget.
@@alexmcd378how about the death rates ?
Not if the men are going to war
@@ahmad2itani Those are about equal as well. On account of everyone dies.
Polygamist wives would be polyandrous. Hard to keep all those husbands in check.
Marriage and polygamy are social and legal constructs. I have doubts that humans have stopped being fundamentally promiscuous despite the promotion of monogamy as an ideal. Living longer lives makes this more apparent.
Thanks Dan. ❤
I thought polygamy went out of fashion because so many wives were divorcing one husband, ie. Solomon and the alimony payments got to be too much, and he had to file for bankruptcy!
😂😂😂
I think the question is when people started having secretive polygamy rather than monogamy 😂
I wonder about the economic response - in the ancient world, having a lot of wives (or concubines or both) was an indicator of wealth and power. But in an industrialized society, there is little advantage that way (although the elite seem to practice serial monogamy more than non-elites).
However, now we are seeing a rise in polyamorous households - could that be a response to housing costs and in a few decades or centuries, it will be seen as 'normal'?
Good it's not capitalism. Thanks man, love from Africa.
I think the earliest flat out condemnation of polygamy by Christians was in mid-late second century to early third century in various patristic writings. Tertullian is one example. As far as I know monogamy was the practice of the Roman Empire and likely had something to do with it.
Yes, but also the early Church was even more anti-sex than most current ones, so limiting the number of people Christians were copulating with was probably also a factor.
@@digitaljanus Most likely you are completely right. That even goes back to the Pauline epistles.
Logistics mandates that a minority of men would be polygamists.
Considering that polygamy pops up everywhere in different cultures all around the world it would be interesting to understand why the Romans didn’t practice it.
@@pansepot1490 It's likely a complicated topic but surely had to do with inheritance and Augustus' views on what was moral. It also was not monogamy is a sexual sense. Roman enslaved way too many people for that to even be common.
Believe me, one wife is enough!
The Ancestral Narrative practices Polygamy and Engonomus marriages (marriages within kin )
Polygamy seems to evolve as a response to social conditions. In polyandrous societies it is frequently a response to land shortage whilst polygyny is often caused by wealth imbalance, where many men cannot afford to support a family wives sharing a husband is an obvious solution. Even where and when the practice is banned, men having unofficial wives, aka mistresses, became common.
Occasionally we find gender imbalance as a cause, either due to war or a tradition of men or women migrating for work and leaving a skewed population behind.
Religious and philosophical justifications appear to follow rather than lead.
Very informative ,Thank you do you know any books about this subject ?
@@weirddude9367 Try Polygamy: A Very Short Introduction by Sarah Pearsall
@@Matt_The_Hugenot thanks
It's my favorite time of day!
I have no problem if it was 2 way but like everything its male dominated
Dang I read the title completely wrong
I'm not great at math, but [one dude, many women] being a minority practice seems like a safe bet.
I’m not great at finances, but even if I could afford multiple wives, I just don’t have the energy or cognitive bandwidth.
It was rare because women were expensive to buy, correct?
Funny, but wrong. Dowries made the initial outlay _negative,_ but upkeep would bankrupt ya
(I'm making light of it because that part was millennia ago, and part of a freakish resource-rich bronze age agricultural society. More recent polygyny is a misogynist practice that seeks to undervalue and undermine women's independence.)
Considering that Biblical laws have their roots in the Bronze age, there's an often overlooked argument to make in favor of polygamy.
I have found researchers who estimate the replacement reproduction rate in the Bronze age Levant to be around 10 - meaning each human family had to bear an average of ten children to keep their population from declining. Infant/child mortality was probably somewhere between 30% - 50%.
And bearing ten children only keeps your population from declining - if you want it to actually increase, you have to have more than ten. And a woman's childbearing period was shorter than it is now - menarche was around 16. Not to mention there was no such thing as prenatal care or sterilization - having ten kids under those circumstances is not at all the same as having ten kids now.
Men can have children much more quickly than women. A man with two wives can have more children than a woman with two husbands. By allowing men wealthy enough to feed and clothe a very large family to build such a family in half the time, you aid your population growth.
Fun side fact: polygamy is technically still permissible in Judaism. But only if you live in a country whose laws permit it. There was a rabbi who issued an injunction against polygamy, but his injunction was only set to last for a thousand years, so it's expired now.
I don't know about the bronze age, but one of the things we observe in Mormon history is that polygamist families had less children per woman. While the number of children a singular man produced was increased, his time and resources were divided. A woman under polygamy didn't become pregnant more than a woman with a single partner. This resulted in big dynastic families, but didn't do much for population growth. It also decreased the number of young women available to the young men, causing a lot of men to leave the community and decreasing genetic variation.
I realize a nineteenth century group would look very different from people who lived 5000 years before them. Noticeably, polygamy was rarer in most bronze age people groups, while in Mormonism it was practiced by a large portion of the community.
It might also be worth pointing out that polygamy still exists in other non-Christian cultures, along with matriarchal societies that have multiple husbands. We should not make the mistake of thinking the Judaeo-Christian traditions of the west are in any way inherently correct or better, they are simply more familiar to us.
It depends how you measure "correct or better". If you measure it by the slow advancement of women's rights (and men's rights as well) then western society is superior. It is hard to see how woman's rights could have advanced as they have in a polygamous society.
@@Nonplused Granted, but in a polyandrous society women's right are to the fore and it is men who lose out, at least by our standards.
My point was that our familiarity with one way shouldn't blind us to other options or make us think those options are in some way wrong.
@@theoutspokenhumanist Nope, I'm going to think they are "inferior", based on my subjective view of what the goals are. For me, they are equality under the law, freedom of speech, innocence until proven guilty, security in your person from encroachment by the state, and property rights. Equality under the law makes it hard to see how either polygamy or polyandry can work. Actually it violates property rights too, or at least dramatically complicates them. A husband and wife can co-own things and split the assets when they divorce, but how do you handle that if there are 3 parties to the marriage?
Anyway, I realize morals can be seen as subjective, but I am with Aristotle. Morality has as its main objective the increase of human happiness. Therefore any morality that subjugates people whether by unequal rights for women (or men), slavery, persecution, suppression of speech, etc. I am against. Sure it might increase happiness for the man with two wives, but that man's happiness has to be tallied against two very unhappy women who do not have equal rights. Same as slavery might make the slave owners happy, but the overall happiness total is down once you count how happy the slaves are. There is no way to be open minded enough to accept slavery just because it is occurring in a different culture (as it still does to this day). Polygamy is the same.
The greatest moral ever put forward is attributed to Jesus, which is to "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Mencius put it in the reverse but the message is consistent, "Do not do to others as you would not have them do to you." Combining these two, we can conclude that any man who would take two wives but not also be equally happy being one of two husbands to a single woman, knows in his heart that what he does is wrong. Objectively. Even if his revulsion to being one of two husbands is subjective.
@@Nonplused Great to learn your views. Thank you.
A couple of things.
Firstly, you used the word subjective and of course that’s fine. We are all allowed to hold our own subjective opinions. But that is different from an objective truth determined by data.
I would also point out that your judgements are all based upon values set by our culture and traditions. They are therefore all relevant, and accurate, if multiple partner relationships were practiced within our culture. But they are not necessarily true if seen within different cultures.
This is precisely where we must be careful not to think we are just better. Our reasoning must be objective, not subjective.
As for the criteria, I tend to agree with your analysis. I was speaking solely about the western tradition of pairing up one man and one woman, with the male always being the senior partner and the female being subservient. This role allocation has mellowed over recent decades but still exists.
There are, as you said, many ways to look at the situation but the goals you mention are secondary to the tradition itself.
I.e. the western marriage tradition is not justified by use of those goals but by appeal to other reasoning, often based on religion or what we just imagine is the natural order.
I think it’s important to realise that whilst your criticism of polygamy or polyandry, with regard to property rights, is true if it were practiced in our society. Where it is still practiced, these issues are not relevant, because other traditions exist within these cultures to overcome such difficulties.
I largely agree with you, and Aristotle, regarding the purpose of morals. I think they evolved within our early ancestors to facilitate living in larger groups and were originally based upon the reciprocation found within family groups; still visible in our primate cousins. But we must be careful when using such terms as subjugation. This again is a subjective determination.
For example, I view Muslim women as subjugated because they are granted less rights in every respect than their male counterparts and yet Muslim women refuse this. For them, because their whole culture is based upon Islam, the gender roles are as they should be, by God’s will. Are they subjugated if they do not think so? For me, yes. Do I have the right to impose my values on them? No.
Your view of the happiness of people in a relationship of three or more people is based upon western ideas of what makes people happy. To us, equality is important but to others, this may be offset by having another person to share work and responsibility or just to talk to when the person of the other sex is being unreasonable.
Sociology has shown us that such arrangements do work and people are happy, because they were not raised and indoctrinated into our way of thinking.
Equating such relationships to slavery is simply false. Slaves have no rights. People in polygamous or polyandrous relationships, within a culture which is based around such arrangements, do have rights and, relevant to that culture, probably just as many rights as we have.
The Golden Rule existed long before Jesus. Our earliest example is from Egypt around 2000 BCE but it is found in all human cultures. Because it is common sense.
I agree that a man with two wives would almost certainly not be equally happy being one of two husbands. But that is irrelevant. If that man was raised and lived in a culture in which having two wives was the norm, he would never find himself as a secondary husband. It’s all about the wider culture.
I hope I have demonstrated that whilst everything you have said is true, within our culture, the types of relationships we are discussing do not exist there, as a norm, and so any value judgments we make must be relevant to the culture in which they do exist.
We cannot simply apply our values as if other people think or feel as we do.
In other words, whilst our opinions may be subjective, the reality is not.
@@theoutspokenhumanist Well, I was intentionally intermixing "subjective" and "objective" because I find those distinctions blurry at best. Even "objectively" looking at "data" can be subjective because data selection is a thing. One man looks at temperature data for example and sees a horrifying trend, another looks at it and sees nothing outside the standard variation.
I am aware that "Do unto others" may not have been original to Jesus. That's why I said it was "attributed" to him. For all we know he never said anything in the Gospels, they were written at least 70 years after his death so far as we know. Still, I like to look at the teachings without the man and see if they hold water. We don't really know Mencius actually wrote all of his works either. But we say Mencius because that's how the package came down to us.
To me, the ultimate test of any system is whether it "works". If the goal is to land a rocket and reuse it, whatever Musk is doing is "working". So then his rocket system is "better" than the other current systems. Same with morals and human happiness. So far (although it is under threat), western society has achieved levels of happiness on a mass scale never before even contemplated by any other society. Therefore I can say that western society is "objectively" better, even though happiness itself is "subjective". That said, another man might say my criteria of equal rights, freedom, and escape from poverty are the incorrect measures and that they are subjective.
The only time polygamy or polyandry increases happiness so far as I can tell is when there is a shortage of either women or men. So it seems to be an intermediate peak to deal with some sort of crisis. For example, if many of the men are getting killed in battle, it makes sense that the survivors need to pick up the slack when it comes to getting the women pregnant, or the loss of fighting men would translate into a population disaster for the tribe. But that doesn't make it ideal. In the case of polyandry, we are only talking about one or two small tribes discovered in Africa which we have decided to call "cultures" for the sake of argument, and it's never been explained (at least I didn't see it) what happened to all the women. Died in childbirth? Infanticide? I don't know. But if there were more women I think we can safely assume the number of husbands would drop proportionately. There is no way one woman could dominate many men while other women go unloved and single. Men just don't function that way. If there is a sexual opportunity, they take it, unless it has a high probability of it resulting in serious sanction or punishment.
A lot of people hope, largely for their own delusional reasons so far as I can tell, that maybe we could maintain western society and allow polygamy, hoping I guess that they might be the beneficiary. But societies don't work that way. The social construct is a very delicate and finely tuned apparatus that evolves through trial and error, and is then passed down through the collective subconscious. It does change over time as it has, but it can't be designed. Any attempt to design it is bound to end in abject failure and societal collapse. All the nodes are too interconnected. That is why when a God dies, the society that created that God is usually not far behind.
Dan, regarding polygamy, can you explain Deuteronomy 17:16-17? I've heard apologists say this is a condemnation of polygamy. And yet verse sixteen uses the same phrasing to prohibit acquiring many horses. That's a strangely specific prohibition to say a king can only have one horse. Can you explain what it means and this relates to other biblical polygamists like David and Solomon?
It means what it says. The notion that "do not take too many" means "do not take more than one" is absurd. If that was the intent, it would have said so explicitly. Anyone who reads the passage as promoting monogamy is torturing the text.
@@avishevin3353 ‘torturing the text’ I visualized the book of Deuteronomy tied down and being waterboarded. 😂
Polygamy, in this economy?
I mean, like, mathematically polygamy has to be a minority practice. It's impossible that the majority could be practicing polygamy unless there was a big war that killed most of the men or something like that. The numbers just don't work otherwise
If there was no concern about polygamy in the Hebrew Bible, why was it condemned in Deuteronomy 17:17?
Make polygamy great again.
Does each wife get her own household? How would we know? Rachel and Leah clearly had separate tents, but did hagar get one of her own?
Oops on letting polygamy stand when likely polygyny was meant. Have you seen these comments?
That roughly matches up with what I've read elsewhere. One question, was Greek culture always monogamous? I don't recall any myths - which represent the Mycenaean age, so quite early - mention anything other than monogamy.
I so want that shirt
It was MATHEMATICALLY only a minority practice. Polygamy just can't be a majority practice for reasons of counting.
Unless you have overlapping polygamy. (The term for one husband with multiple wives is polygyny.)
What about female polygamy? Seems like many women, especially widows, could maintain multiple households.
What about the Samaritan views on polygamy? I haven't been able to find an Samaritan Torah online (preferably an interlinear) to try to study it, but I've heard that there is a verse which in the Jewish Torah forbids a man from marrying his wife's sister instead in the Samaritan Torah forbids him from marrying anyone else at all so long as his wife lives.
Like Moses? Didn't he have two father in laws? It never mentioned his first wife dying, as far as I recall. In Exodus, Moses' father-in-law is initially referred to as "Reuel" (Exodus 2:18) but afterwards as "Jethro" (Exodus 3:1)
Or two names for the same person like jacob/israel.
Polygamy is a lot broader subject than that. "Genetic evidence has demonstrated that a greater proportion of men began contributing to the genetic pool between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago, which suggests that reproductive monogamy became more common at that time."
Hmm, have we ever determined if the adoption of agriculture had a positive effect on male fertility?
@@thetopfaceNo, it means that polygamy was actually the norm in human society until fairly recently in our species' history. This may come as a result of the rise of agriculture, as the dates seem to match. Morality would not have been a factor in these societies yet, as the tying of sexual relationships to morality only came about around the Classical era. Something more basic gave rise to more monogamy thousands of years before that.
I've seen those and the rebuttals that show serial monogamy can explain the same results. Bear in mind that we're both using the generic word _polygamy_ when you probably mean _polygyny_ to prop up your dogma.
@@creamwobbly Serial monogamy is actually kinda bs in the context of genetic studies. Humans tend to have a near-even split between male and female births in each generation, so for serial monogamy to result in a high concentration of specific male genes, a lot of other males must have been prevented from having female breeding partners. Either they died out in droves before sexual maturity or the "winning" males got rid of their "contributions" somehow. Socially then, serial monogamy can only have worked in prehistoric human culture through the exact same mechanism as polygamy - or child murder.
Have we?
Is Paul teaching monogamy when he says women should have her "own" husband or is that just how it seems in most english translations? 1 Corinth 7:2
Also in english it makes sense to see Jesus as condemning polygamy when he condemns men for divorce and remarriage stating it is adultry because the man is still married to the woman in God's eyes. Would we get the same impression if we were to read it in aramaic or greek? Matt 19:9 and Mark 10:11.
To hell with Monogamy. We should never marry, and we should have multiple lovers.
Wait, what? We switched up?
What about polyandry and the many humans who lived prior to 5,000-12,000 years ago?
This channel is about biblical scholarship. You need to ask that question to scholars and scientists who focus on prehistory.
"Multiple different"?. Would there be "multiple same"? "Single different"?
Pedantry is never attractive, speaking as a recovering pedant myself
2:50 mohamed inspiration right here - 4 additional wives.
Is this a complaint? 😅 jest aside, wouldn't it be expensive on so many respurces when you get down to it?
I think polygamy was also a practical consideration since there would have been a lower number of men proportional to women then than now. Because of wars dangerous jobs etc. Since the people were the property of the king and the king would have wanted all women to give birth to as many children as possible. In cultures where the exposure of babies wasn't a common practice polygamy would probably be the "next best" sollution to harmonising the loss of young men.
The Romans gave us monogamy.
Wait! Are you saying we’ve gone to monogamy?
My great grandfather was a Mormon polygamist. It was ugly. Problems among the wives divided the family for generations. When Mormons said they stopped the practice due to revelation to get statehood, they lied and continued to practice it. Eventually, they stopped, and now the main branch of Mormonism excommunicates those who practice it. Was Joseph Smith inspired of God to "restore" the practice or did he desire to have more sex?
My grandmother was born in 1889 and knew of the horrors.
I think Dan McClellan talks about in his Mormon Stories interview. He said polygamy was a thing in the Hebrew Bible, but it wasn’t really sanctioned by God as essential for eternal salvation. It was something that just happened at the time, and nobody bat an eye.
Going off of that, Joseph Smith either used that as an excuse to get married to a bunch of women or read that and thought “why don’t we do that anymore” and went ahead and started that (maybe even believing that it was revelation).
Either case, it’s a practice that is frowned upon in modern society and has been the subject of uncomfortable (but also interesting) conversations with Mormons that distance themselves from such practices.
I’m listening to the Sunstone Podcast and they go into a lot more detail about the history of polygamy in the Church. Safe to say, how they got from doing polygamy to where they are today is a lot more messier than a simple “they stopped an people who didn’t like that they stopped left the Church and started their own” narrative.
Based on the evidence, it's pretty clear Joseph Smith and his cronies were simply doing the same thing that later became a cliché about (male) cult leaders, namely acquiring a harem in all but name only. In other words, less "We are restoring the way God intended us to live" and more "I want to tap that and this is a convenient explanation as to why it's okay and I'm not just a complete douchebag".
I don't know how anyone could deal with more than one woman unless they are abused as the Bible suggests.
Notice how “traditional” polygamy is always a man with multiple wives and never the other way around? It basically relies on keeping women socially downtrodden so they don’t have other options but to accept being in a polygamous relationship for social stability reasons. (Not knocking modern, consenting polyamorous relationships btw).
I think it was yesterday?
We started with monogamy.
Who is "we"? Of the first two "marriages" the bible mentions, one had no choice because there weren't other women for Adam to "marry". The second is Lemech, and he is recorded as having two wives. Seems to me that the Bible condones polygamy from the earliest opportunity.
The term “ scattered among the nations “ comes to mind. There are two kingdoms in play?
Great video, loved this one alot. But for real tho… Polygamy equals bad because Girls feelings… duh lol
We who?
As Robert Alter argued if you read the Tanakh and come away thinking polygamy is a good idea you haven’t learned how to read.
Like Joseph Smith
In what way? He covered a lot of area about polygamy and monogamy and the historical Christian and Judaic church. Be more specific.
It was the other way around. It started with monogamy and then deteriorated into polygamy after man rebelled against his Creator.
I think if you have to get married, NO Not the eunuchs thing jesus... lol I think you should have to have 2 wives. They need to have someone to talk to. 🙂
they can talk to their friends.
@@mkprr its better not to marry. 🙂
Out in Utah amongst Dan's church brethren, never.
Your info is out of date
The modern mainstream Mormon church has not practiced polygamy for over a hundred years.
There are fundamentalist sects that practice it. But they are not part of the mainstream church. So they are not part of the church Fan belongs to any more than a Protestant follows the pope.
God created one singular counterpart for Adam. Marriage is a very solemn institution within Judaism. Most certainly a gift of God. Coupled with the responsibilities of rearing children.
Allowance isn't the same as approval. From the beginning God's definition was one man one woman. Because some people didn't follow this means nothing. God also gave the definition of murder and yet people still did it. So again, allowing something and approving something is a huge difference.
You Mormon pot smokers need to get your definitions straight. 1. MONOTHEISM:, as a term, refers of course to the belief that there is only one God. 2. POLYTHEISM, on the other hand, describes any religious tradition in which there are many gods and goddesses who are the object of worship and devotion. 3. HENOTHEISM, which is the view that there are many gods and goddesses, but one god in particular reigns supreme over all of them, with the others as his assistants or subjects. 4. MONOLTRY, the belief IN and worship of one god, while acknowledging the existence of other gods. ----------- I quote: "Henotheism is similar but less exclusive than monolatry because a monolator worships only one god, while the henotheist may worship any within the pantheon, depending on circumstances.
@@frogmanvc I stand corrected Mormonism is a monalotry then. But why not address me since I made the mistake, not Dan?
And I am not Mormon! I do not smoke pot. You are insane and evil.
Hmm... to be taken seriously, when you say "I quote", you really should say who or what you're quoting - for instance A) an expert with an important distinction relevant to the topic, or B) a whack-a-doodle with a jones for irrelevant distractions who is trying to denigrate someone that is trying to communicate effectively to non-experts.
@@johnmcgimpsey1825 Type in the words of the quote onto your internet search box. AI (Joseph Smith), will lead you to the source of my information that I present to all of you pot smokers. Folks who love the Book of Mormon written by a famous MYSTIC.
Marriage in general had several [at least potential] benefits. A single parent [most often a woman] would in theory benefit from having a partner or partners to help in the complexity, intensity and duration of child care. [This of course assumes input from the other partner[s]s and that was not always the case].
Secondly marriage [with sexual fidelity, again if practiced] reduced the spread of sexual diseases.
Close bonds with someone you could trust could give security and relief from outside pressures in the world.
So there were lots of secular [ie non-religious] reasons why marriage made sense, especially if the "woman as a chattel" was removed from the equation, which took a while to gain traction. In general religion was not a fan of such wild ideas as women being actually being full human beings with rights and stuff. Of course, for women especially, marriage was not really a "volunteer" activity. So hard to figure out why many feminists are not overly keen on marriage, especially in a 'traditional" setting? [sarcasm]
Couldn't polygamy also have been a legal/political arrangement? In many premodern societies, marriage was a type of contract between the husband and the wife's family.
🤔 I forgot my point 😂