Riddle Me This

* Hat tip to Myriad Mormon Musings for bringing this question to mind some time ago. I don't think she meant to, but the comments section led to it.

If polygamy is abominable to God except for when he deems it absolutely necessary ("For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people" Jacob 2:30) or when he wants to prove us ("For I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice" D&C 132:51)

Why does the church practice/believe in celestial polygamy?

What would be the purpose?

Surely the standard answers we give here would not apply in heaven - or am I missing something? I've gone over this and I can't see it.

Typographical errors...oh, and this, too.

Want to know one of the things I loved about this Church as an investigator?

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. (Articles of Faith, no 8)

We use the King James Version, not because it is a perfect translation but the closest to perfect. Joseph Smith spent some time reworking the Bible as evidenced in the Joseph Smith Translation and his revised, if you’ll pardon the term, version of The Gospel of Matthew.

I’ve never taken issue with this. It’s only truth that over time a work can change – we all know the grapevine rule. The first whispers that his mother got a new job and by the time the twentieth person has heard it, the news has changed to some lady was murdered. An exaggerated example, but the idea is there.

The Book of Mormon, however, is supposed to be pure, the most correct book on the Earth. I’ve always understood the book has no need for further translation.

It appears I am wrong, and on some fronts I can accept this. After all, Joseph Smith and his scribes couldn’t exactly spell and when they could, capitalization and other spelling rules differ. The grammar of the time also varies widely from the grammar of today. There are typographical errors and clarifications to be made, as well as a translation of the original handwriting (handwriting can be difficult to understand).

A few years back, my mom gave me a 1920 edition of the Book of Mormon she discovered at an estate sale. I thought “Oh, cool. I wonder what the differences are,” but I didn’t consider anything huge to have happened. I didn’t study it either, but I figured it was all grammatical and placed it on my bookshelf. It is cool after all. I’d kill for an 1830 edition, too, just for the historical value. I never really thought I’d ever have reason to reference this older edition.

So when I ran across an article last night which discussed a major word change from the 1920 edition to the 1981 edition, I double checked and sure enough…

1920 Edition 2 Nephi 30:6

And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people.

1981 Edition, 2 Nephi 30:6

And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.

It’s not that difficult to catch, though I do find it interesting that other passages within the Book of Mormon were not changed:

2 Nephi 5:21 (1981 Ed.)

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

Listen, as an investigator I knew about the accusations of racism directed at the Church. Everyone – at least most – knows of the ban of Blacks and the Priesthood. I still remember sitting in my college library, reading the scriptures in an effort to figure this out. I knew of the passages in the Book of Mormon which used the word “white” and concluded it must be metaphorical. After all, white generally signifies purity because white is devoid of all color. Easy enough, and upon some research I’m hardly the first to come to such a conclusion.

But I didn’t know about these quotes. I already mentioned this one in a previous entry, but I’ll repost it anyway:

Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood…. This negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa—if that negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.

- Race Problems—As They Affect The Church, Address by Mark E. Petersen at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, delivered at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954. Emphasis added.

That one is bad enough. As a church we like to dismiss such horrible words as the words of an Apostle speaking as a man. Surely this isn’t doctrine, surely these words spawn from a horribly racist culture of the 1950s.

And yet…

I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today as against that of only fifteen years ago. Truly the scales of darkness are falling from their eyes, and they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people. . . .

The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated. (Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference, October 1960; See also Improvement Era, Dec.1960, pp. 922-923)

Have we taught that the Lamanite people, even the African-American, the Asian, etc. people have darker skins than us due to their less-than-valiant work in the pre-existence? Before finding this discrepancy between Book of Mormon editions, I might've squeezed a “probably not” from my lips. I couldn't say that now.

And it continues in the 2006 Doubleday Edition of the Book of Mormon. For anyone who is unaware, the Doubleday edition is a "commerical" edition of the Book of Mormon meant so anyone who wanted to get a copy could get one without contacting the Church.

1981 Official LDS Version, 2 Nephi 5 (chapter summary)
Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, receive a skin of blackness, and become a scourge unto the Nephites.

2006 Doubleday Edition, 2 Nephi 5 (chapter summary)
Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed, and become a scourge unto the Nephites. (original emphasis)

1981, Official LDS Version, Mormon 5 (chapter summary)
The Lamanites shall be a dark, filthy, and loathsome people. (original emphasis)

2006 Doubleday Edition, Mormon 5 (chapter summary)
Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them. (original emphasis) (all from Lamanite Curse, FAIRwiki)

Much more PC, eh?

Look, I appreciate the changes, but I don’t appreciate our silence and inability to just apologize for crap said and basically condoned by Church leadership. We explain it away as if it doesn’t matter, but it does matter. The Church explained the change thusly,

The Prophet himself attempted to correct some of these kinds of errors, but his many duties prevented him from completing the project; and even so, some of his corrections seem to have disappeared again in later editions. For example, the 1830 and 1837 printings of the Book of Mormon contained a prophecy that the Lamanites would one day become ‘a white and delightsome people’ (2 Ne. 30:6)

In the 1840 printing, which the Prophet edited, this passage was changed to read ‘pure and delightsome people,’ but for some reason later printings reverted to the original wording.

-Bruce T. Harper, The Church Publishes a New Triple Combination, The Ensign, October 1981.

What are the other changes made? Here are two examples from that article, representative of the whole:

(1) 1920 Ed, Alma 16:5 - To know whether the Lord would that they should go into the wilderness…

1981 Ed., Alma 16:5 - To know wither the Lord would they should go into the wilderness

(2) 1920 Edition, 2 Nephi 29:4 - Do they remember the travels and the labors, and the pains of the Jews…

1981 Ed., 2 Nephi 29:4 - Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews…

Simple enough. Understandable enough.

But from “white” to “pure”? Someone’s idea got in the way here, and we’d have to question at a motive. Why would anyone change it either way?

The Utah Lighthouse Ministry – admittedly not a fan of the church – has responded to the Church’s explanation. I don’t post this lightly. I know some, if not many, will stop listening right here but please keep with me. I’m not trying to disprove anyone but offer other arguments for discussion:

It should be noted that Church leaders are unable to produce any documentary evidence to support their claim that this was merely a correction by Joseph Smith of a typographical error. There were originally two handwritten manuscripts for the Book of Mormon—a copy which was written by Joseph Smith's scribes as he dictated it and a second "emended" copy that was prepared for the printer. Unfortunately, most of the first manuscript was destroyed through water damage. The Mormon scholar Stanley R. Larson informs us that this manuscript "does not exist for this section of the text. . . ." ("A Study of Some Textual Variations in the Book of Mormon Comparing the Original and the Printer's Manuscripts and the 1830, the 1837, and the 1840 Editions," Unpublished M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, April 1974, page 283)

Fortunately, the second handwritten manuscript—the copy given to the printer to use to set the type for the first printing of the Book of Mormon—was preserved by Book of Mormon witness Oliver Cowdery and is still in excellent shape. This handwritten manuscript does contain the portion printed as 2 Nephi 30:6. It uses the word "white," and therefore does not support the claim that Joseph Smith was only correcting a typographical error (see Restoration Scriptures, by Richard P. Howard, Independence, Missouri, 1969, p. 49). It should be remembered also that both the first two editions of the Book of Mormon (1830 and 1837) used the word "white." It is especially significant that the 1837 edition retained this reading because the preface to this edition stated that "the whole has been carefully reexamined and compared with the original manuscripts, by elder Joseph Smith, Jr., the translator of the book of Mormon, assisted by the present printer, brother O. Cowdery, . . ." (Book of Mormon, 1837 Edition, Preface, as cited in The Ensign, September 1976, page 79)

- Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Salt Lake City Messenger, A White Pure and Delightsome People, Issue # 46, October 1981.

Many will trust the Church on the basis they don’t believe the Church, its leaders, or its doctrine to be racist – at least not today. As other passages in the Book of Mormon continue to use the word “white” in much the same way it is used in 2 Nephi 30:6 in the current edition, it’s difficult to really know. You’d think each ambiguous use of the word (not easily dismissed as metaphorical) would have changed as well in the 1981 edition.

What also baffles me is that, through my own research, I remain unconvinced that Joseph Smith was racist. His political platform dealt with the freedom of the slaves and I understand he baptized at least two black men.

It is curious. I’m unsure who to believe and it is due mainly to the many racist comments made by church authorities over the years – comments which have been dismissed and explained away rather than apologized for and recognized as patently disgusting (after all, we don’t criticize our leaders, even if that criticism is justified). It’s become more obvious to me the doctrine regarding people of dark skin being less valiant in the pre-existence was taught and can be linked to such scriptures as the ones I’ve mentioned here.

In a semi-related issue, there is also the rumor that Joseph Smith taught that polygamy would be necessary to mix the blood of the white people with that of the darker-skinned people as to help expedite the “whitening” process. This is an easy enough teaching to dismiss; however, when compared with then Elder Kimball’s General Conference remark, “One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated” it’s a more difficult an idea to reject.

I also understand that if one wants to, one can find evidence sufficient to support any claim. After viewing what I am able, I happen to lean to the side which states the original handwritten copy edited by Joseph Smith used the word “white” instead of “pure.” The LDS sources I’m able to view are short and rather vague while the other sources are much more thorough and cite other sources as well. When I compare and contrast, this is the conclusion I find myself coming to. I know many will undoubtedly gasp in horror and shock at such words (sarcasm), but the links are there for individual viewing and conclusion. I’m interested, if anyone finds the time, for other points of view.

Any thoughts?

No more girls allowed!

It's not often I find the courage to bring up controversial subjects.

No, really.

I'm not entirely sure I have brought up "controversial" subjects yet. Yes, the gay marriage thing. Whatever. I'm over it. It's something people are angry over, targeting the church over (after all, we were vocal. what? we can exercise our freedom of speech in the democratic process but dissenters can't? as long as the protests at the temple are peaceful, i say they deserve at least our respect to their feelings to allow them to have their say)

Anyway. This one does make me nervous, but I think it deserves some discussion. We'll see what other people think, yeah?

A comment string a few entries back brought up the P word. I don't really know how, but I know I'm the one who brought it up.

C'mon. You know what I'm talking about. It's like Peanut Butter and Jelly. Mormons and...

Polygamy, right.

This is kinda a "hush hush" topic. Some consider it "sacred." Some, I think most, don't know how to talk about it.

I mean, how do you talk about this?

"God commanded it."

Yeah, you know...truth or not, that just doesn't cut it for outsiders. It doesn't really cut it for some insiders to be honest. It might work for the zealous, passionate new member, but if something were to happen - say, hubby cheated or something - she might feel differently about sharing her husband, even if God commanded it.

I've been around some women who joke it off. "I'd love to have more wives. I could delegate some of the stuff I have to do."

Some rationalize it. "I'd have to give permission, right?"

"Abraham was asked to do something unthinkable as a test of his faith. This is no different."

Uhm, if we're going by history...I don't know about permission. It's nice to think so, but Emma didn't give permission; she wasn't even aware of many of Joseph's wives.

And yeah it kinda is different from Abraham.

First, I would never ever question Abraham's faith. That said, I can't believe he was like "Kill my kid for you? Can I do it now?"

Unless God caught him on one of "those" days. Any parent knows what I mean. It's like after the morning I had. My four year old son gets up before we do anymore. Generally he just watches cartoons and might make breakfast for the other two (he's surprisingly clean about it), but this morning he decided to clean out the fireplace, still hot with embers.

Or the time I found him dipping a paper cup into a toilet bowl full of crap.

If God caught Abraham on one of these days, perhaps Abraham would've jumped at the idea. "I was hoping you'd say I could! Do I have to get him on an altar, or would the tent do?"

But seriously now. If Abraham was human and loved his child, his only son - and I think that's a safe assumption - and if this is supposed to allude to the difficulty and the emotional turmoil and yes, utter importance, with regarding Heavenly Father and Christ, than...yeah. I imagine he fought and cried and anguished over this.

But he went to the altar. We can assume the resignation was sincere. Despite everything he'd been told, he was going to kill his kid for God. That's not faith. That's knowledge.

But here's where the parallel ends, I think: God stopped him.

God never stopped Joseph Smith from taking on other wives. And as far as Emma goes, when she was able to reconcile herself to the idea, it was only temporary. She couldn't handle it and kicked those women out. Joseph had to practice this in hiding for the most part. Emma never taught her and Joseph's sons about it. To this day, the RLDS Church (which her sons founded) denies Joseph ever practiced polygamy.

Any woman...scratch that. There are people who willingly practice this. I don't imagine there are many, if any, LDS women who could and feel good about it. I couldn't. That would very well be the straw that breaks this girl's back. It's weak as it is.

I know, I know, I know. I've read D&C 132. Often. I know this is a Celestial doctrine. I know if I can't accept it I'm unworthy to be in His presence. At least that's what I've heard, and it really rubs my fur the wrong way. Really? Everything could hinge on that? Eh.

I know God knows my heart. He can't possibly...I just couldn't. I empathize so much with some of our more feminist sisters. For God to come and command my husband to take on another wife, sleep with her, have babies with her...

No wonder some women feel like nothing in this Church, like second-class. I totally get it. You might say "well, we don't practice it now," but we do. Spiritually. When my mom came with our family to the Sacramento, California temple open house, the tour guide brought up the subject. I'll never forget my mom turning to me and saying, "So, if you died, Eric could get married here and still be married to you?"

My heart plummeted. I didn't want to lie, so I didn't, but I did at least give voice to my disapproval. I wouldn't want it.

(just as a quick side note: yes, I know. I've found the most chivalrous men in this church. My husband treats me like a queen and I'm unbelievably blessed for it.)

I have great difficulty understanding and accepting doctrine that I can only see serving to beat down women, and don't you dare try to tell me this wouldn't beat down women. You'd better have some serious backup if you're going to do that. Even if I had faith enough to follow, I would be among the most unhappy people ever. It's breaking my heart now to even think of ever having to live such a doctrine, let alone accept it. I'd want to know why. I think I'd deserve and have some right to know why. If that's prideful, so be it. I'd want to know. I'd even be as bold as to demand it. I think a lot of you would, too, and if our God is as loving as we teach, He'd understand.

I dare any one of you women to honestly and sincerely imagine the situation and then tell me you would have the faith. Maybe some of you would. I doubt it, though. I love my husband. We have some crazy outofthisworld connection. Some might find the story of how we met and how we "knew" unbelievable. The fact is I love him, and I'm okay with being selfish about him. Even after I die, I wouldn't want him taking anyone else on.

He's mine, and I'm his. It's the most exclusive of relationships. If my relationship, if my marriage is as sacred as we've been screaming and waving signs around for, then, I'm sorry: no more girls allowed. You can say that nullifies my testimony. I say it's ridiculous to assume Joseph had to be right on absolutely everything in order for the entire gospel to be true. That's a lot to put on one man. There have been, from what I understand, a few things we've changed through the years. As a reader of mine cited in his entry today,

1 Corinthians 13:8-10

8 ...but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Hm.

Yes, I know this is "different," but one cannot shoot me down because I struggle with such a touchy doctrine. It's trickier than people want to make it. We want to not think about it. It's easier to not think about it. It's easier to say it happened because the ratio of men to women was less than desirable. It's easier to say it happened because older women needed care for, or that God wanted to "raise seed unto him."

The fact is we don't really know. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't know. We can guess to make ourselves feel better about it (because, really, is there anyone in the Church who would welcome this with open, unflinching arms? I hope not), but we don't know.

And I hatehatehate that it is so central to our doctrine. Central enough that the heighth of my salvation depends upon my "acceptance" of it. Well, accepting the doctrine means that you would do it if asked. Even if you really believe you could do it, how would you feel? About your husband, about your wife, about God...about yourself?

There's really no other way to put it. I know exactly how I'd feel.

I'd feel like shit.

You?

Not all blind faith is good.

It took me a while, but eventually I decided I would write openly about some issues regarding the church. I was actually shaking the moment my article regarding polygamy and the church was published because I knew family and friends would be notified of it and would read it.

Sure enough, a day later a friend of mine emailed and asked if I was "okay."

I assured her I was.

She expressed her discomfort with my use of unauthorized sources.

I assured her it was okay. The main text I used was written by an active LDS scholar, and as far as I could remember, the work had been ok'd by the Church – which I did on purpose to quell this specific kind of reaction. But oh well. Everything else I used was scripture. I felt comfortable in my sources and chose them with great deliberation, and I told her that.

She bore her testimony to me and hoped I would be able to come to terms with things.

Listen, there's a problem when people don't want to hear "the whole story" regarding anything. When I was investigating the church some ten years ago, my family threw all sorts of anti-Mormon media at me. Some years before, my mom found much thrill in "winning an argument" with the missionaries. My stepbrother dated a member, and my family was very concerned but found much entertainment in some of the stories he brought home. I won't lie. I laughed, too. I still do. You've gotta have a bit of humor.

Anyway, I visited various websites for both sides of the spectrum.

I've seen The Godmakers. Horrible movie, almost entertainingly so. Anyone with half a brain could see that (one gem in this movie is that "Mormon" means "Satan" in Chinese. Geeeeez)

My mom felt certain I'd move to Utah, be one of fifty wives, and raise chickens (which I find hilarious now that I know Eric wants to raise chickens someday. But he's weird – and cute).

I know what anti-Mormon media looks and sounds like. Richard Lyman Bushman's Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling is not anti-Mormon media.

It is, however, fabulous reading. You should all read it.

What it came down to, by my impression, is that if I would've quoted John Bytheway or anyone like him, my friend would have been fine.

But anything that doesn't shed good light on the church needs to be stifled.

Listen, faith is good. I would venture to say some blind faith is good. Sometimes I just want my kids to trust me, and I'm sure God feels the same way about many things.

But what is faith if you don't know the whole story? What is faith if we feel compelled to withhold information because someone might find offense to it? Naïve faith. That’s what it is.

For argument's sake, let’s assume you join the church wrapping yourself in the blanket statement "...plural marriage has not been approved by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and any member adopting this practice is subject to losing his or her membership in the Church."

...but you don't know that we still believe in it. That it's a Celestial doctrine. That it is so central to our beliefs that it has been said that if we do not accept it as God's truth, we will not be permitted into God's presence.

What if you don’t agree with that? What if you don't like it?

Should we be told “chill out, you’ll be fine,” or "Too bad. You don't have to like it, you just have to accept it"? (I want to punch people who say that) Are those tired, assumed rationalizations of why polygamy happened sufficient? Does it definitively say anywhere that there were too few women for the men and we needed to raise up a righteous, LDS generation? That it was also to take care of the older women? (I always wondered about that last one: can't we take care of each other without marriage?)

We don’t really know why. Let’s just say it. We don’t. Honesty leaves a stronger impression than tired, weak rationalizations.

So what if a member or investigator has serious problems with something like polygamy? What if she prays and still has issues? Can you really tell her to have faith and just get over it?

Can you really?


But I digress. My friend felt my article didn’t shed good light on the Church and stood as evidence to a shaky testimony. She closed with an email expressing her love and concern. I'll admit to finding some amusement as I warned her of an impending article which refuted arguments for Proposition 8.

The thing is, I never said the Church was wrong, and I did that on purpose. I know what can happen when you dare something even close to that.

But what I did say was enough for her. After reading my Proposition 8 article, she told me she no longer wished to read them. Another friend whom I’d known almost as long told me she had to shake off some bad feelings after reading my articles.

Is this really where we’re at?

I can see how questioning can possibly lead to “apostasy,” but can we truly live in such a way as to be afraid to question? To wonder? Should we rationalize in order to satiate that unsettled feeling or thought we’re having? Should we settle with believing what our leaders say? Our bishops, home teachers? Dare I say even the Prophet?

Listen! These are MEN. Not every word that comes from the mouth of the Prophet is prophecy, not every word from his mouth is the word of God. Though I’ve never read it myself, I’ve been told Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s book Mormon Doctrine is not authorized material. Many people find great solace in that because, apparently, Brother McConkie takes quite a bit of license in his words.

But many still cite it as if is infallible, undeniable truth.

Hell, even then-Elder (and later Prophet) Spencer W. Kimball offers this in his preface to The Miracle of Forgiveness: “I accept full responsibility for the contents of this book. Specifically, the Church and its leaders are totally absolved from the responsibility from any error which it may be found to contain.”

I'm told this book was later accepted as scripturally sound and is now considered doctrine, but the fact remains that in the beginning, then-Elder Kimball felt the need to qualify his work.

The moment someone says something that might not reflect well on the Church, though, we balk. I can understand why: we have skeletons in our closet, but we also have a history of persecution and we’d just rather leave it alone. Isn’t there enough negative attention given to the Church for its own members to add to?

But sometimes you have to.

Nothing I’ve said regarding polygamy was a lie. We do believe that it is practiced in the afterlife, and if a member or investigator doesn’t know or is otherwise kept from knowing that, then there is a problem.

If the Church is true, if any doctrine is true, than we shouldn’t be afraid to explore it. We shouldn’t be discouraged from talking about it. We shouldn’t keep others in the dark for fear that they may decide to leave because of it. That’s not our problem.

And yeah, I would rather die than have to see my husband take on another wife, and that feeling should be okay. I imagine many women would feel the same way – that many back in Joseph Smith’s days did feel that way.

While I’m okay with not knowing some things, there are things I take personally, and this (for various personal reasons) is one of them. I want to understand this, and I don't. I would hope this would be something the Lord would feel those who are troubled should understand.

I want to be taken seriously. I think anyone, especially women in the instance of polygamy, should be taken seriously when she presents this as a concern.

And rather than joke about delegating chores out to “the other wives,” we should consider this with an honest heart, because sometimes our faith is only as strong as our knowledge.


(if anyone is interested in the above referenced article: Mormons and Polygamy: Practice versus Belief. Thanks.)