In another thread I listed 10 reasons why polyandry should trigger red flags in any fair minded persons mind by the churchs recent admission that JS and BY "married" their followers wives.
One of the reasons I listed was that polyandry was a barbaric, immoral and unethical practice outlawed in every Western society, fot good reason. How do you determine parantage with 2 fathers? The Family tree is a rats nest.
One poster objected to my judgement, but couldnt name a single Western Society where polyandry was legal.
Because they have never existed.
To me, if the behavior is illegal in all 50 states, and every democracy throughout history, its probably immoral or at least unethical.
If the practice is too barbaric for Islam, its probably sick and wrong.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2016 09:11PM by koriwhore.

Not arguing with your conclusion that it's immoral, but I am curious. Why only Western Society? There are/were many great societies/civilizations around the globe.

As if all of the history of Judeo Christian Civilization wasn't enough to pick from?
They wrote their laws down.
Show me a written law anywhere that legalized polyandry.
I know Native Americans swapped wives, but they also didnt have written laws.
Hey I'd be all for living life like a Bonobo, if it wasnt immoral/ illegal to go around fucking everybody, And if it wasnt for all the social diseases. I just think social diseases are natures way of telling you to slow your roll.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2016 01:00AM by koriwhore.

Please tell me what is so enlightened about the Judaeo Christian view point. And please tell me what made the 10 commandments so grand.

From the other thread (me quoting me)

Since the commandment against adultery doesn't really address women let me extrapolate to demonstrate how awful it is.

The commandment was that men may not have sex with a married woman. End of discussion.

If a man has sex with a married woman, the injured man may choose to stay married to her or divorce her. If there is a divorce the other man may choose to marry her. If he doesn't choose to marry her she is a whore and is killed.

If a man has sex with an unmarried woman than the man must marry her. Unless of course her father didn't want it. In which case she was a whore and was killed.

If a man has sex with a whore, she is a whore and is killed

If a man has sex with a relative, the relative is a whore and is killed. The man has to live with the shame.

If a man decides that he doesn't want to be married anymore he only need accuse his wife of adultery. If she cannot prove she didn't commit adultery she is a whore and she is killed. If she can he has to stay married to her.



I get that it softened but the point was that women were chattel and men were just dumb for giving into the wiles of those dirty women. This is your measuring stick. Nothing but bronze age sheep herder garbage that doesn't resemble anything close to being ethical or right.

Like I said, show me one law that legalizes polyandry, it doesn't even have to be from a Western Civilization.

I'm not using the Bible as a measuring stick and I agree with you, it treats women like cattle. But it's ironic that you're defending the sexual behavior of JS and BY, who were child rapists and cuckold bulls who cuckolded their followers by having their way with their wives.
But I love irony, so please do continue, after you produce this law legalizing polyandry.

JS and BY were horrible awful men and I wouldn't dare defend them.

Polyandry on the other hand is simply women openly having more than one sexual partner and in a more restricted sense is married to more than one person. I can think of no reason why this would be inherently wrong or as you put it immoral. Your distaste for polyandry, outside of the fact that you appropriate hate JS and BY, is tied to no laws allowing it and disputed parentage.

As for laws specifically forbidding it there are none. I challenge you to show me just one law that specifically forbids polyandry. There are laws that forbid polygamy but I would imagine that those are relatively short lived. But again what's your damage with societies that are not "Western"

And the parentage thing. This really is a very misogynistic kind of argument. "How will the poor woman know who the father is" "the family tree will be a mess". If the family doesn't care why do you?

You may want to look into Fraternal Polyandry in Tibet. Although I rather doubt that there is a specific law that makes it legal, since it was never illegal to begin with.

Nothings says abuse, woman as sex objects and massive egomania more than polyandry...

perky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothings says abuse, woman as sex objects and
> massive egomania more than polyandry...

?????????

I can see why you would say this about polygamy (more than one wife), but it doesn't make any sense for polyandry (more than one husband).

Yeah, I agree. It doesn't follow.

Again, why the privileging of "Western" cultures? The question was asked in the previous thread, but never answered.

Why is democracy inherently more moral than other forms of government, given that voters may or may not have either an internal moral compass nor a belief system guiding them as they vote?
And, if "every democracy throughout history" has outlawed polyandry, what are we to make of the fact that polyandry was practiced in some areas of ancient Greece, the (thoroughly pagan) cradle of democracy?

Romans, a "Western" society whom many consider the pinnacle of ancient culture, knowledge, and civilization, did it, too.

Although this is an admittedly non-scholarly source, check out ten times polyandry was accepted and practiced: http://www.alternet.org/sex-amp-relationships/10-surprising-times-history-when-polyamory-was-acceptable

Lest you default to the logical fallacy of simply attacking the source rather than addressing the content, note that you can find the same information in scholarly articles and history texts.

So far, the only argument here focuses on determining paternity: "The family tree is a rat's nest." The answer is a concept called "partible paternity" -- the cultural belief that a child can have more than one father. Of course, that idea doesn't sit well with patriarchy, which views women as unequal partners who "belong" to a man and which uses male primogeniture to confer money, rights, assets, and power to male children of individual men.

The other unanswered question from the previous post: Why is the concept of women having equal marital options so disturbing? Simply repeating the ten assertions from the other thread does not answer the question.

Again, Western Cultures kept better records and wrote down their laws. Like I said, I know primitive people practiced it, but so do Bonobos. That's not the direction civilization is headed I hope, otherwise there would be no law against rape.

This rape thing is confusing. Polyandry is empowering to women.

Western cultures kept better records and wrote down their laws better than the Greeks and Romans? Really?

You are using Islam as the yard stick of measure? Really? What about just using common sense to decide what is moral, ethical, sick and wrong?

You totally missed my point.
Like I said, polyandry has always been illegal in all 50 states and every civilized society, even Muslim society.
Never in the whole history of Western Civilization has there been a law that legalized polyandry and I doubt there was a law in Eastern Civilization that permitted it, but I know there are primitive people who do practice it, which is my point.
We're not primitive people if we live in a civilized society, governed by laws.

And laws that forbid consenting adults to make decisions are stupid.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And laws that forbid consenting adults to make
> decisions are stupid.

Yes. For example, this piece of French stupidity:

https://mobile.twitter.com/cjwerleman/status/768226750442504192

Yep

"How do you determine parantage with 2 fathers? The Family tree is a rats nest."

Star Trek Next Generation made multiple fathers with one mother a way to avoid the disaster facing a population of clones in the episode "Up the Long Ladder". It was better fiction than the Book of Mormon.

But back to Joseph Smith - he was just a sick bastard that used his lies about God to steal other men's wives for his own sexual gratification. What he did was immoral by the standards of his society and was a violation of the 10 commandments in the Bible. His excuse? "God made me do it".

Mormons excuse for singing the praises of Joseph Smith, knowing he illegally 'married' other men's wives, when there was never a law permitting that kind of deviant behavior, "God would have struck him dead if he did that without God commanding him to do it!"

Apparently not, since he lived long after he started practicing polyandry, long after God commanded all of us not to covet our neighbor's wife and commit adultery with her.

Agreed. Their excuse to justify his adultery is really nothing more than that he got away with it. That is disgusting to most decent people.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To me, if the behavior is illegal in all 50
> states, and every democracy throughout history,
> its probably immoral or at least unethical.

Although the number of states would be reduced, the same thing could be said of women voting, or interracial marriage, or LGBT relationships, for most of American history. "Legal" and "illegal" are constantly evolving concepts throughout history, and this includes the USA.


> If the practice is too barbaric for Islam, its
> probably sick and wrong.

I don't think that Muslims would consider polyandry "barbaric," just incomprehensible (because women are supposed to be constantly secondary, and subservient to, a male "guardian"---whether that male "guardian" be a husband, brother, father, uncle, cousin, her own son, or whatever).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2016 09:50PM by Tevai.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In another thread I listed 10 reasons why
> polyandry should trigger red flags in any fair
> minded persons mind by the churchs recent
> admission that JS and BY "married" their followers
> wives.

Fair minded is a nice add but not part of your original question. Which was "How does polyandry not raise a red flag for Mormons?" The answer simply being because they don't look at it like you do.

> One of the reasons I listed was that polyandry was
> a barbaric, immoral and unethical practice
> outlawed in every Western society, fot good
> reason. How do you determine parantage with 2
> fathers? The Family tree is a rats nest.

To be clear are you saying that a woman marrying more than one man is "barbaric, immoral, and unethical; and is outlawed specifically because of determining parentage?

This seems mighty misogynistic of you. How dare a woman not care who the father is?

> One poster objected to my judgement, but couldnt
> name a single Western Society where polyandry was
> legal.

Are you speaking specifically about legally sanctioned marriage between a woman and a man and a man? As I said before there is no law that forbids my wife from having multiple partners. And I would submit that the only reason we still have polygamy laws on the books is because we are too tangled up with garbage like tax codes and the like that assume two people in a marriage.

> Because they have never existed.

This simply isn't true. Rome and Greece, the birthplace of your sacred Western Culture had laws that allowed women to mate with someone they weren't married to.

> To me, if the behavior is illegal in all 50
> states, and every democracy throughout history,
> its probably immoral or at least unethical.

Weird reasoning. I suppose that since democracy allowed for slavery that it was moral and ethical.

> If the practice is too barbaric for Islam, its
> probably sick and wrong.

Islam doesn't allow for a lot of things that are perfectly reasonable. But just for kicks. If wearing a bathing suit is too barbaric for Islam, its probably sick and wrong.

I tend to favor your view, Jacob.

>
> "barbaric, immoral, and unethical"
>

These are words of art. They only mean something within the context of a framework. Citing the Bonobos was apropos! Viewed from a certain perspective, their free-for-all sexual displays are "barbaric, immoral, and unethical." Just not from the perspective of the Bonobos.

I have it on excellent authority that there are females of the human species who put into practice the "barbaric, immoral, and unethical" sexual exploitation of men, many men, younger than themselves. They have their critics. But they also have their supporters.

It would be child's play to rear children in such a manner that any chosen "barbaric, immoral, and unethical" perversion would be 'natural' to them.

I think it's "barbaric, immoral, and unethical" that babies allow themselves to be born naked!

So according to this standard, theres nothing immoral about rape?

Ghensis Khan didn't think so.

Humor. EOD was engaging in humor.

I fail to see the contextual link to rape.

I get that Joseph Smith was a vile pile of shit, but you seem unable to separate Joseph Smith and his overall lack of anything resembling ethical behavior from other situations. Joseph was horrible but not because he had sex with more than one woman. He was horrible because of the coercion and deceit.

Fair minded is a nice add but not part of your original question. Which was "How does polyandry not raise a red flag for Mormons?" The answer simply being because they don't look at it like you do.
______________________________________________________________

I know, it's called delusion. That's the problem. They fail to recognize the problem with a man abusing his power to coerce his follower's wives into having illicit, illegal and immoral affairs with him, despite the fact that the all laws are quite clear, especially the 10 Commandments, which have always been written in black and white in their own GD Bibles.
______________________________________________________________

To be clear are you saying that a woman marrying more than one man is "barbaric, immoral, and unethical; and is outlawed specifically because of determining parentage?

This seems mighty misogynistic of you. How dare a woman not care who the father is?
______________________________________________________________

No I'm saying it's illegal, and always has been, for a whole litany of reasons, which I've already given, but feel free to defend a sexual predator like Joseph's Myth and call me a misogynist for thinking he was wrong. smh
______________________________________________________________
Are you speaking specifically about legally sanctioned marriage between a woman and a man and a man? As I said before there is no law that forbids my wife from having multiple partners. And I would submit that the only reason we still have polygamy laws on the books is because we are too tangled up with garbage like tax codes and the like that assume two people in a marriage.
______________________________________________________________
I'm speaking specifically about what JS and BY did to their followers, which to me constitutes cuckolding their followers by raping their wives and teenage daughters, which is horrible and I can't believe there are still ExMo's defend that practice.
______________________________________________________________
> Because they have never existed.

This simply isn't true. Rome and Greece, the birthplace of your sacred Western Culture had laws that allowed women to mate with someone they weren't married to.
______________________________________________________________

link to laws legalizing polyandry please
______________________________________________________________
Weird reasoning. I suppose that since democracy allowed for slavery that it was moral and ethical.
______________________________________________________________
Wrong. Just because a society allows it, doesn't make it moral. Prostitution is legal in Nevada. That doesn't make it moral. I'm just asking what makes it Moral? What determines morality, if not the laws we, in a democracy, agree should be written?
______________________________________________________________
Islam doesn't allow for a lot of things that are perfectly reasonable. But just for kicks. If wearing a bathing suit is too barbaric for Islam, its probably sick and wrong.
______________________________________________________________
Again, you completely missed my point and ironically twisted it to mean just the opposite of what I was saying.
In a civilized society, one governed by laws, we have never had a law permitting polyandry, that I've seen, but plenty of laws condemning it, for good reason.
Islam is the most barbaric religion IMHO. It still allows polygamy, which is considered one of the last relics of barbarism. Yet, even barbarians think polyandry is too primitive for their tastes.

Again, what makes something moral or immoral in the absence of laws?

There's also an important distinction between "laws legalizing polyandry" (which assumes that it was illegal at some point and a society passed a law to officially make it legal) and accepted practices that were never illegal in the first place and therefore did not need a law passed to legalize them. It is therefore unsurprising that by demanding specific legislation aimed at legalizing previously-illegal practices, you fail to find legal evidence that societies or cultures practiced polyandry, even though there is plenty of documentation that they did.

Just a quick jaunt through the citations in Wikipedia.

The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:

And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands [as prisoners of war] . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319).



So ifen I capture a woman I can have her even if she is married.

Yea, you don't get the Islam thing. The prohibition against sex with a married woman is not a nod to mortality but a nod to other men not wanting to risk their property.

I could see polyandry being moral in primitive societies where men killed the offspring of their rivals. Women can solve that problem with polyandry by ensuring the men don't know who a kid's father is. No man wants to risk killing his own child.

That's a bit off topic, though. But it does seem silly to let religion define morality when it has such an appalling track record. The introduction of religion to indigenous peoples makes the cannibals of Borneo look moral by comparison.

Becoming an agricultural society meant that men needed to prove who their heirs were, so they knew who to hand the land over to. Monogamy then became the norm, for women, at least. At some point as a modern society we should realize that monogamy is still about controlling women and fear of their sexuality. You could consider the notion that lineage could be determined by the mother, and the father is who parents (nurtures) the child, not who provided the sperm. But matriarchy is ABSURD, right?

Which is another good reason why polyandry doesn't make sense.
Were any of Joseph's polyandrous "wives" (rape victims) entitled to his property? What about Brigham Young's polyandrous 'wives' (rape victims)?

Why shackle and control women to ensure their children inherit when you can write a will?

Questions about morality are essentially pointless without first establishing a common moral framework. Lacking that, these discussions quickly erode into a series of "a bear meets a hunter in the woods" jokes. These are always fun because the bear and the hunter do not share a common worldview, morality, or (as the jokes always demonstrate) a common diet.

The genius of our founding as a country was that it was created to be a purely secular government without a state religion, but formed with an understanding that the interests of the people would largely fall within a Judeo-Chrisian moral framework. This saw us build courthouses across the land which display Christian and Jewish iconography but place no specific requirement on the population to embrace the intricacies of these faiths. But the message was clear. We all share a common morality, and we can trace its roots from the original law-giver in Moses through the embodiment of judicial mercy in Jesus. With this framework in place, we can all agree with the immorality of polyandry.

Fast forward to the present, however and there is a growing movement to reject the common morality that was assumed at our founding. This means that discussions like this become little more than regional or tribal appeals. There is no logical reason to reject polyandry, because morality has no need to be tied to any form of logic. At its lowest common denominator, morality needs be little more than an evolutionary insistence upon survival. If polyandry somehow serves that specific purpose at a specific time, there's no reasonable argument that can be made against it.

The same goes for all morality. While our laws may continue to imitate a Judeo-Christian morality, if individuals reject that framework, there is no reason apart from the law to embrace these concepts. Laws are not the same as morality.

"At its lowest common denominator, morality needs be little more than an evolutionary insistence upon survival."

If that's all we had to determine morality, then rape would be legal.

You say that laws and morality are not the same thing.
I agree with you to some extent, just because its legal, doesn't mean it's moral (prostitution in NV) and just because it's illegal, doesn't mean it's immoral (it's illegal for a bartender in a restaurant to mix alcoholic drinks in public view in UT, not that it's immoral, it's just that prudes don't like to see drinks being mixed and they make the laws in UT).
But if it's outlawed in all 50 states, chances are, it's immoral. I can't think of a behavior that's outlawed in all 50 states that I'd consider 'moral behavior'.
Just because one state makes it illegal, doesn't mean it's immoral, chances are that state is just governed by prudes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2016 11:05AM by koriwhore.

I still find it amusing and stinkingly sexist that you are outraged by the idea of polyandry but not polygamy. It's OK if a male has more than one partner, but not if a female does. Morality (as understood to be sexual behavior) does not need to be determined by society at large, but each person, male or female, should determine who they partner with, and agree with that partner about what rules they will have. This is basic autonomy and liberty, and the guv'mint and religion should butt out.

I'm not sure I would be so quick to label this as sexist.

Polyandry brings a significant separate moral issue into play. These women were encouraged to break a pre existing marital vow to consort with the prophet. It's no longer a simple transaction between two consenting adults. It requires violating a solemn vow and a religious leader encouraging that violation.

I'm really not speaking about polyandry as practiced by JS and the women he had religious sway over. I'm talking about women's sexual autonomy when they have control and power over their own situation.

I find it amusing that there are still exmos who defend Joseph's "morality" knowing he ruined his followers lives, by cuckolding them, raping their wives and teenage daughters after sending them away on 8 missions, like Henry Jacobs, who got royally mind fucked by Joseph's Myth and Bring'em Young.
Apparently there is no such thing as Morals and ethics on RfM?

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find it amusing that there are still exmos who
> defend Joseph's "morality" knowing he ruined his
> followers lives, by cuckolding them, raping their
> wives and teenage daughters after sending them
> away on 8 missions, like Henry Jacobs, who got
> royally mind fucked by Joseph's Myth and Bring'em
> Young.
> Apparently there is no such thing as Morals and
> ethics on RfM?

I just reread your OP, koriwhore...and I think the problem began there because, although you did cite JS and BY, you then (in the same post, and within a few words) APPEARED to broaden your subject from a specific situation in historical Mormoninsm to the subject of polyandry "at large"...

...ANY instance, which EVER happened, or any instance in the indefinite future, of a woman with more than one husband at a given moment in time [or, perhaps, any woman with more than one non-marriage sexual/relationship partner, it is unclear from what you said], so what I think is your original point about historical and (perhaps) present-day MORMON polyandry becomes a confusing debate about two DIFFERENT subjects:

1) Mormon polyandry: past, present, and (potentially) future

2) ALL historical instances of polyandry, worldwide, throughout history...plus (perhaps) all instances of women having more than one marital/sexual/relationship partner at any given moment in time

I, personally, thought that you were talking about polyandry in general...and you (I'm pretty sure) were talking about a specifically Mormon subject and problem in Mormon history.

Am I correct in what I said in this post, and did I misunderstand the intent of your Original Post???



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2016 12:36PM by Tevai.

The original post was the "red flag" post. My main point was that if the CES letter doesn't raise a red flag in your mind, that is a red flag, telling me, this is the perfect definition of delusion; persisting in an erroneous belief despite Superior evidence to the contrary.
I gave 10 reasons why the churchs recent admission of JS and BYs polyandry should rsise red flags.
Ine of those reasons is that it is and always has been illegal in every civil society, governed by written law.
So far, nobody has proven otherwise.

Thats the Warren Jeffs defense for him raping little girls.
The Gov oughtta just buuut out, this is about liberty.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2016 12:08PM by koriwhore.

I'm absolutely against situations where there is no consent, such as raping minors, or polygamous cults where women cannot choose their own partner.

But youre cool w what happened to Henry and Zina?

polyandry as practiced by JS was manipulation and corruption. I've explained what I meant.

You continue to misunderstand. I think that you are so emotionally wrapped up in these discussions that you fail to recognize the perspective. Joseph's polyandry was vile. Jeffs' polygyny is vile. I would venture to speak for everyone here. We agree Joseph was a dick and Jeffs deserves to rot in jail.

This whole conversation is about what determines morality, if not religion ir the law?
Einstein said social propriety, relationships, was enough. Of course he cheated on his wife and mother of his children, with his 1st Cousin, then her daughter, so not a great moral authority.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2016 12:39PM by koriwhore.

"But if it's outlawed in all 50 states, chances are, it's immoral."

If it's outlawed in all 50 states, it's a threat to the power of the aristocracy. The establishment needs monogamy to fill its slave labor force. Once you have a nuclear family, you're locked in.

Babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "But if it's outlawed in all 50 states, chances
> are, it's immoral."

Prohibition was once the law of all of the states that then existed (forty-eight states at that time...before the admission of Alaska and Hawaii).

Does that mean that when Prohibition was the law of the land, that drinking alcohol was immoral???

Like I said, 'If a behavior its illegal in all 50 states, and every Western society, throughout history, its probably immoral."
Polyandry is a perfect example.
Since drinking doesnt fall into either category your question is based upon a false premise.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2016 03:04PM by koriwhore.

Alcohol prohibition was very much like marijuana prohibition. Primarily industry-driven. Alcohol production was a threat to the oil industry. What exactly was moral about John D. Rockefeller? Randolph Hearst protected his investment in tree-based paper by killing off the competition. Rockefeller helped take down "de 'erb" because he was heavily invested in drug-based medicine.

How about this "morality": You pay your electric bill for 20 years, but then your cash flow causes you to be two months late. The electric company turns off your power. That's the morality of our society. I know working poor people who are adamantly against raising the minimum wage or otherwise making a more fair system. Morality is basically what we all buy into. Platonic truths have nothing to do with it.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How do you determine parantage with 2
> fathers?

Blood tests or DNA tests. Quite simple nowadays.

> To me, if the behavior is illegal in all 50
> states, and every democracy throughout history,
> its probably immoral or at least unethical.

Marriage between a black person and a white person was illegal in all 50 states until not that long ago, and was illegal in nearly every "democracy throughout history."
Does that mean it was immoral or at least unethical?
Nope.

> If the practice is too barbaric for Islam, its
> probably sick and wrong.

Eating pork is "too barbaric for Islam." Does that make it sick or wrong?

I'm not going to tell you why I personally think polyandry isn't a good idea. I have my reasons.
I'm just going to go along with other posters: you need to come up with rational reasons, not the fallacious, poorly-reasoned ones you used, to call it "immoral."
"Because other people think it's immoral" isn't a reasoned, thought-out argument. It's herd mentality.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2016 03:10PM by ificouldhietokolob.

So far nobody has really answered the question, they just assume Im sexist for asking.
Again, what determines if something is moral or immoral, if not laws and religion?
For me its conscience and empathy, which seems sadly lacking in this whole conversation, among those who defend Mormon polyandry.
Joseph and Brigham exploited their followers in every way, financially, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually, sexually, but worst of all, for me, is the fact they ruined their followers lives by stealing their wives and teenage daughters, in order to do what Warren Jeffs did to his victims.
There is no difference, IMO.
Mormons defense of Joseph's and Brigham's deviant sex lives is the same defense Fundies use to defend Warren Jeffs, "He gets a free pass because he's a Proft of Gawd."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2016 03:19PM by koriwhore.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So far nobody has really answered the question,
> they just assume Im sexist for asking.

I did answer it, I don't consider it "moral." And I didn't assume you were sexist.

> Again, what determines if something is moral or
> immoral, if not laws and religion?

That's a circular argument. How do religions or laws come to be what they are? Because somebody decided certain things were "moral" or "not moral." So to then use religion/law to declare what's "moral" or "not moral" means you've come right back to your starting point, and still haven't stated a basis for determining what's "moral" or "not moral."

> For me its conscience and empathy, which seems
> sadly lacking in this whole conversation, among
> those who defend Mormon polyandry.

I didn't really see anyone "defend" it. They just pointed out your fallacious reasoning in declaring it "immoral."

So, OK, your basis is "conscience and empathy." But "conscience" is different among different peoples and cultures, and what are you having empathy for?

So, one more time: arguing something is "immoral" because other people think it's immoral, or because it's "traditionally immoral," or because "western civilization thinks it's immoral," is a lousy argument.

Why do YOU think it's immoral? What is *wrong* with it that makes it immoral? What harm does it cause human beings? Why should we humans decide the harm it causes (if it does) makes it worth outlawing, over our desire for freedom in choosing how to live our own lives?

Make a reasoned argument for your case.
So far you haven't.

You mix at least three questions:

1) "what determines if something is moral or immoral, if not laws and religion?"

2) Implicitly, is Western law and custom a sufficient or superior basis for morality?

3) How do Mormons justify polygamy/polyandry?

By confusing those questions you lead us into a quagmire. There is a huge literature on the basis for morality, comprising everything from genetics and natural selection through sociology and on to philosophy. You can't just state that question and then move on.

Western law and custom are irrelevant to your question. They are a particular solution to a universal problem, and there are instances in which Western norms differ/ed substantially from what you assume. Western civilization is not demonstrably superior in a moral or ethical sense to at least some other systems.

Mormonism is also irrelevant. Mormonism is a pimple on the backside of humanity. It does not really matter. Mormons' views of polygamy/polyandry could be considered within the LDS context--the contradictions, the effect on people, the hypocrisy--but as soon as you bring in such fraught topics as Western civilization and its moral adequacy (?) or the much bigger question of where morality comes from, a reasonable discussion becomes impossible.

"but worst of all, for me, is the fact they ruined their followers lives by stealing their wives and teenage daughters..."

You're being sexist because you're talking about men stealing women from other men. Where is the ability for women to choose in your thinking? I know you're talking about Mormon history, and in those cases women didn't have a choice or were being coerced or blinded by their faith. At the same time, others of us are talking about the possibility of a modern situation where a woman chooses multiple partners of her own free will with everyone consenting, and you aren't seeing that.

Inherent in the idea that a man could steal a woman from another man is the idea that the woman is an object, a possession, that he has control over. That's why you're sexist.