FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Difference between revisions of "Is polygamy sexist?"
SpencerMarsh (talk | contribs) (→Question: Is polygamy sexist?) |
SpencerMarsh (talk | contribs) (→Question: Is polygamy sexist?) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
The observation that allegedly grounds this assertion is that polygamy fragments women's emotional and sexual opportunities as a wife. As Brian C. Hales has argued: | The observation that allegedly grounds this assertion is that polygamy fragments women's emotional and sexual opportunities as a wife. As Brian C. Hales has argued: | ||
| − | <blockquote>In the case of a new plural wife who would have remained unmarried if monogamy was exclusively practices, her “emotional and sexual opportunities as a wife” are increased from zero to some fraction depending on how many other wives the man has. However, the other wives’ opportunities are diminished as a result of the new plural matrimony.<ref>Hales, "Opportunity Lost," 97n4.</ref></blockquote> | + | <blockquote>In the case of a new plural wife who would have remained unmarried if monogamy was exclusively practices, her “emotional and sexual opportunities as a wife” are increased from zero to some fraction depending on how many other wives the man has. However, the other wives’ opportunities are diminished as a result of the new plural matrimony.<ref>Hales, "Opportunity Lost," 97n4. Hales has repeatedly made this assertion in his publications. See another instance in Brian C. Hales and Laura H. Hales, "[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lending-Clarity-to-Confusion.pdf Lending Clarity to Confusion: A Response to Kirk Van Allen’s 'D&C 132: A Revelation of Men, Not God']," ''FairMormon Papers and Reviews'' 1 (2015): 4</ref></blockquote> |
Do these assertions hold? This article will present at least one argument that they do not. | Do these assertions hold? This article will present at least one argument that they do not. | ||
</onlyinclude> | </onlyinclude> | ||
{{endnotes sources}} | {{endnotes sources}} | ||
Revision as of 15:52, 21 February 2022
- REDIRECTTemplate:Test3
Question: Is polygamy sexist?
| This page is still under construction. We welcome any suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Answers Wiki page. |
Introduction to Question
It is claimed that the historical practice of polygamy as well as contemporary theology about polygamy and its possible extension into the eternities by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is sexist. This has been most passionately argued by Latter-day Saint poet Carol Lynn Pearson in her book The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy: Haunting the Hearts and Heaven of Mormon Women and Men.[1]
The observation that allegedly grounds this assertion is that polygamy fragments women's emotional and sexual opportunities as a wife. As Brian C. Hales has argued:
In the case of a new plural wife who would have remained unmarried if monogamy was exclusively practices, her “emotional and sexual opportunities as a wife” are increased from zero to some fraction depending on how many other wives the man has. However, the other wives’ opportunities are diminished as a result of the new plural matrimony.[2]
Do these assertions hold? This article will present at least one argument that they do not.
Notes
- ↑ Carol Lynn Pearson, The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy: Haunting the Hearts and Heaven of Mormon Women and Men (Walnut Creek, CA: Pivot Point Books, 2016). For reviews that expose the weaknesses of Pearson’s position and approach, see Allen Wyatt, “Scary Ghost Stories in the Light of Day,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 23 (2017): 137–160; Brian C. Hales, “Opportunity Lost,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 23 (2017): 91–109.
- ↑ Hales, "Opportunity Lost," 97n4. Hales has repeatedly made this assertion in his publications. See another instance in Brian C. Hales and Laura H. Hales, "Lending Clarity to Confusion: A Response to Kirk Van Allen’s 'D&C 132: A Revelation of Men, Not God'," FairMormon Papers and Reviews 1 (2015): 4