Why is polygamy such a hot-button topic?

[batjerk]

The question of "deeper love" or marital love concerning the principle is: Is true marital love only something that can be shared 1:1 or is it something that a responsible steward can provide for two spouses? Does it require exclusivity or is it capable of providing fullfilment without diminishing "duty of marriage*" and all that implies.

*Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

I think herein is the heart of the discussion.

I think that currently, the first part after the colon is true. In reality, the latter is true, we just can't see it because of our dark state.

O when will the scales of darkness fall the eyes of mine understanding?

[KevinG]

Because 47 was enough for any man?

Right! That's why Mormon men stop marrying at 47.

The same reason that Mormon women stop having babies at 45. (46 is just too many to handle).

This long pause for the next response has me nervous... I think I'm in biiiiiig trouble with the sisters now!

[liz3564]

Batjerk,

I think you bring out an interesting conceptual point concerning man being an enemy to God and the whole "natural man" aspect discussed in the scriptures.

I do think, however, that our basic ability to reason and come to terms to things is closer to God than we give ourselves credit for. If it wasn't we would be having discussions like this one!

After all, we are "Gods in embryo."

[alannasaunt]

The question of "deeper love" or marital love concerning the principle is: Is true marital love only something that can be shared 1:1 or is it something that a responsible steward can provide for two spouses? Does it require exclusivity or is it capable of providing fullfilment without diminishing "duty of marriage*" and all that implies.

*Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

Hmmm...concerning the scripture you quoted...taking the most simplistic reading of it...I do believe a man ccould provide materially for more than one woman.

The deeper, marital love...that's another question. I stated somewhere early in this thread that I think I could love two men (if called to do so, I would not choose it however). Having multiple spouses leads to compartmentalization. Not everything could, or should, be shared by everyone in a PM. How does this then lead to "oneness".

This leads me to wonder about the other spouses...either polygynous or polyandrous. If two (or more) people were sharing a spouse, could they give complete love and trust to someone who has divided loyalties, a divided heart, etc.

I don't know. I doubt I would be able to do this. I would need an emotional divide. Apparently there were those in the early church who felt the same way. Here is a quote from "In Sacred Loneliness":

Polygamous marriage, by modern monogamous standards, often does not seem like marriage at all. Sometimes polygamous wives consciously steeled themselves to limit affection for their husbands, as a strategy for emotional survival during absences. Vilate Kimball advised a plural wife that "she must lay aside wholly all interest or thought in what her husband was doing while he was away from her" and be "pleased to see him when he came in as she was pleased to see any friend." Annie Clark Tanner wrote of her husband, "When he came to my house, he was more like a guest."

Thus the title of this book, In Sacred Loneliness. Often plural wives who experienced loneliness also reported feelings of depression, despair, anxiety, helplessness, abandonment, anger, psychosomatic symptoms, and low self-esteem. Certainly polygamous marriage was accepted by nineteenth-century Mormons as thoroughly sacred

[alannasaunt]

You know why Mormon men hardly ever marry after 47 don't you?

ok, i'll bite...

never mind...the answer was posted while i was typing.

i do find comfort knowing i'm not the only frustrated comedian here.

[KevinG]

Yes. Was the lonliness caused by an imperfect practice of the higher law? Given time is measured to man alone, this could be less of an issue in the eternities, but it's still and issue, and one that has caused me much considerationa and some heartache.

I would love to have a deeper understanding of what the phrase "duty of marriage" means in that passage, and how that can be accomplished. Honestly that is my biggest struggle with the Principle, not that I feel it's a false doctrine, but how can a mortal man live up to the standard of providing full emotional support for two women? Perhaps like consecration it's a law we practice here and cannot live perfectly within the constraints of mortality.

Ironically my wife would probably take a position close to Charity, where the expectation that a man should be exclusive and sole provider of that kind of support, while denying it to another woman who was not so fortunate to have a good husband, would be considered selfish. I honestly have a bigger problem wrapping my brain around it than she does.

[alannasaunt]

I really can't wrap my head around the oneness of a marriage being the same as a oneness in heart of a community. P

Are you suggesting that it is impossible for someone to be "one" with their spouse and not be "one" with another spouse? What does it mean to be "one"?

Nighthawke,

Honestly, I don't have a vocabulary to describe this "oneness". But, yes it does seem require exclusivity and uniqueness between TWO people.

Sorry, I can' t be more precise.

[alannasaunt]

Yes.  Was the lonliness caused by an imperfect practice of the higher law?  Given time is measured to man alone, this could be less of an issue in the eternities, but it's still and issue, and one that has caused me much considerationa and some heartache.

I would love to have a deeper understanding of what the phrase "duty of marriage" means in that passage, and how that can be accomplished.  Honestly that is my biggest struggle with the Principle, not that I feel it's a false doctrine, but how can a mortal man live up to the standard of providing full emotional support for two women?  Perhaps like consecration it's a law we practice here and cannot live perfectly within the constraints of mortality.

Time is definitely an issue in earthly PM.

I think this quote, though, goes beyond just the sharing of time. It goes to the sharing of heart. Creating an emotional void seemed to be a strategy for emotional survival for many of these women. They had to hold back. They weren't "unique" and they knew it. He couldn't (as a husband) give himself completley to them. As a result, they couldn't give themselves completely to him.

Whatever "oneness" is, it isn't this.

BTW, I too would like to more fully understand what "duty of marriage" means. I'm sure it's not as simple as just the providing of material support.

[liz3564]

In my field, we study "love" and the different ways it manifests itself. Romantic love is just one aspect. And I disagree, alannasaunt.  The gospel does not revolve around romantic love.  Far from it.  We aim for much higher.

Romantic love, by the way, lasts about six weeks, unless you do something to encourage it to hang around.  I saw another post-er use the term "limerence." Very intense.  Very meangingful.  Very transitory. We should be more grown up than that.

Please reread my posts. Dadof7 and I had a rather extensive discussion of "romantic love" earlier.

I call it "romantic love" because I don't have a better term for it. I am NOT talking about that first flush when two people first meet.

The "romantic love" I am talking about is the totality of a very long term (think eternal here) relationship between a man and a woman. This love is very different and much deeper than that shared with children, friends, etc.

The "romantic love" I am talking about is in no way transitory or childish.

In my own field, IT, we often have problems with our users over vocabulary. We use the same words to describe different things. Perhaps that is what is happening here.

Alanna,

Now I know why you and I are so aligned in our thinking. I'm in the IT field as well! I teach Computer Science to college students, so I can definitely relate to the whole "user vocabulary" concept! I spend my day explaining "techy" concepts to "lay people"!

Just so I don't get too far off the beaten path as far as the thread goes....

I think that you also make a good point. You were inferring the term "romantic love" in a much larger sense than infatuation.

I think this goes along with the sense of how women perceive "romantic love".

As a woman, the sexual part of my marriage relationship is extremely emotional for me. It is not the ONLY part, but it is an important part of the whole. It is a powerful connection which brings us closer together. I'm not ashamed to say that this is a part of my marriage I don't want to share with anyone else. It's a part of my marriage I'm not comfortable sharing. This piece of it has always been my stumbling block.

[KevinG]

Yes.  Was the lonliness caused by an imperfect practice of the higher law?  Given time is measured to man alone, this could be less of an issue in the eternities, but it's still and issue, and one that has caused me much considerationa and some heartache.

I would love to have a deeper understanding of what the phrase "duty of marriage" means in that passage, and how that can be accomplished.  Honestly that is my biggest struggle with the Principle, not that I feel it's a false doctrine, but how can a mortal man live up to the standard of providing full emotional support for two women?  Perhaps like consecration it's a law we practice here and cannot live perfectly within the constraints of mortality.

Time is definitely an issue in earthly PM.

I think this quote, though, goes beyond just the sharing of time. It goes to the sharing of heart. Creating an emotional void seemed to be a strategy for emotional survival for many of these women. They had to hold back. They weren't "unique" and they knew it. He couldn't (as a husband) give himself completley to them. As a result, they couldn't give themselves completely to him.

Whatever "oneness" is, it isn't this.

That void was created by my wife when I had a consulting job that required me to work away from home every week. I've seen it and you are right, it's not oneness. We had to work very hard at repairing the relationship and I am determined to avoid that type of work schedule if I can possibly do so.

I don't think that is the intent or proper practice of monogamy or polygamy, just a natural reaction to a hard circumstance. Many of these families weren't able to have a father present, not because of the Principle, but because prosecution under the law did not allow them to recognise their husbands publicly. Others practiced it in such a way that I would not personally have done (multiple households in far away places).

Polygamy was practiced by some, however in a manner in which the household was loving and respectful (as attested too in some journal accounts). I think it could be done, but just as it is with Monogamy, and perhaps more so, there would be a lot of hard work, and much patience involved.

[alannasaunt]

In my field, we study "love" and the different ways it manifests itself. Romantic love is just one aspect. And I disagree, alannasaunt.

[KevinG]

So to put it in terms you are familiar with, the question should be...

"Is a man capable of real time multi-tasking simultaneous complex programs, or would duel processors require too much capacity to be practical? Did the system designers plan for this configuration?"

[alannasaunt]

Yes.

[alannasaunt]

So to put it in terms you are familiar with, the question should be...

"Is a man capable of real time multi-tasking simultaneous complex programs, or would duel processors require too much capacity to be practical? Did the system designers plan for this configuration?"

The system designers clearly did not plan for this configuration. Otherwise, the PM man would have a back-up for every PM wife.

[KevinG]

Yes.

[liz3564]

Ironically my wife would probably take a position close to Charity, where the expectation that a man should be exclusive and sole provider of that kind of support, while denying it to another woman who was not so fortunate to have a good husband, would be considered selfish. I honestly have a bigger problem wrapping my brain around it than she does.

And I think that your wife is unique in that aspect. I admire women who are.

It is difficult for me to wrap my mind around it as well..which is why I started this thread to begin with!

As you mentioned...it's the emotional support which is hard for me to comprehend.

[alannasaunt]

I agree the emotional distance was the result of the woman feeling neglect, but what I cannot tell is if there were optimal circumstance, and all involved felt it was the right thing to do, if that would be as much an issue? I simply cannot tell, but the circumstance probably prevented the husband from even being able to put forth his best effort to honor his wives in the first place, which didn't help.

See, I don't think the emotional distance was necessarily a result of anything the man did or didn't do. It was the result of a woman knowing she was not unique to her husband. That he could not give her his complete love and devotion, so she had to protect her heart.

There was no "uniqueness". It didn't have to be the result of failure or neglect.

[Zakuska]

So to put it in terms you are familiar with, the question should be...

"Is a man capable of real time multi-tasking simultaneous complex programs, or would duel processors require too much capacity to be practical?  Did the system designers plan for this configuration?"

The system designers clearly did not plan for this configuration. Otherwise, the PM man would have a back-up for every PM wife.

Well... I can partially agree.

The Ideal configuration in Eternity is one man one woman. However... this isn't eternity and things tend to get messy.

And like I said earlier... It only takes one man to man an ark.

[liz3564]

I agree the emotional distance was the result of the woman feeling neglect, but what I cannot tell is if there were optimal circumstance, and all involved felt it was the right thing to do, if that would be as much an issue? I simply cannot tell, but the circumstance probably prevented the husband from even being able to put forth his best effort to honor his wives in the first place, which didn't help.

See, I don't think the emotional distance was necessarily a result of anything the man did or didn't do. It was the result of a woman knowing she was not unique to her husband. That he could not give her his complete love and devotion, so she had to protect heart.

There was no "uniqueness". It didn't have to be the result of failure or neglect.

And, building on this concept, I don't think that this is coming from a selfish perspective. Selfishness is what those of us who feel this way have been accused of, and I think that's rather unfair.

As a woman, I am more productive, can be a better nurturer to my children, and to others, knowing that I have that unique support from my husband. The individual goodness I produce springs from this union.....the unique commitment we have to each other...and our commitment together, as a couple, to God.

[KevinG]

No matter how many women I was called to support each of their relationships would certainly be unique to me. Perhaps It's a matter of not having the right word to explain it again, but I wouldn't want anyone to think my relationship with my first wife is in any way diminished in my heart and mind, simply because I am required to support and love an additional wife by God.

This is where I think the parallel with multiple children does apply. Not in the depth or type of feelings, but in the respect that the human heart has the capacity to love very deeply and intensely more than one child. It has the capacity to honor more than one parent. Why not the capacity to honor and cherish in a unique way more than one spouse?

Is this a burden that is too great for God to require of us, or is it a form of Charity and selflessness that He expects us to be able to at least comprehend? That comes full circle again to the heart of the question.

The answer is: If it is God's will than He has provided a way to fulfill the task honorably.

That's a big if though, and I don't presume to answer it for anyone but myself.

[alannasaunt]

I agree the emotional distance was the result of the woman feeling neglect, but what I cannot tell is if there were optimal circumstance, and all involved felt it was the right thing to do, if that would be as much an issue? I simply cannot tell, but the circumstance probably prevented the husband from even being able to put forth his best effort to honor his wives in the first place, which didn't help.

See, I don't think the emotional distance was necessarily a result of anything the man did or didn't do. It was the result of a woman knowing she was not unique to her husband. That he could not give her his complete love and devotion, so she had to protect heart.

There was no "uniqueness". It didn't have to be the result of failure or neglect.

And, building on this concept, I don't think that this is coming from a selfish perspective. Selfishness is what those of us who feel this way have been accused of, and I think that's rather unfair.

As a woman, I am more productive, can be a better nurturer to my children, and to others, knowing that I have that unique support from my husband. The individual goodness I produce springs from this union.....the unique commitment we have to each other...and our commitment together, as a couple, to God.

liz,

We may be approaching a rudimentary definition of "oneness" here.

Tell me if I'm getting close.

You are able to function better in your roles as wife/mother/woman because of the "unique" relationship you have with your husband. This relationship leads to a sense of completeness that cannot be derived from any other relationship. Is the reverse true? Is he able to function better as a husband/father/man as a result of his "unique" relationship to you? If so, you two are taking each other "oneness".

Does the danger (i'm not sure that's the right word) of PM come from knowing that a woman can't "complete" her man? If their union does all the things you describe for her, but not for him, then they're not equal. If he needs/wants more than she can give, then she's less then he.

I need to think about this some more.

[KevinG]

Not to complexify this more

There is no way I would be complete enough to provide for others if it hadn't been for the influence of my first wife. Taking on another is not a matter of fulfilling some need that the first could not fill.

I'm not sure we can fully understand it without having to live it.

[liz3564]

Here's another angle to think about.

Dadof7, you mentioned earlier that those who handled monogamy best would be the ones who would likely be called to handle polygamy. This makes complete sense to me.

OK....

My husband and I were talking about polygamy the other night. He understands my concerns about it. His feeling is more along the lines of "I have enough to deal with with one". I realize I'm a lot to handle! LOL

He said to me, "Well...if we were commanded to practice it, don't worry. You would still be the favorite wife. You would be the one I would always want to be with and spend time with.."

OK..so now I'm thinking....from a 2nd or 3rd wife perspective....How fair is that for them? Why would a woman want to enter into that kind of relationship where they are second in the husband's eyes? I know I wouldn't! It would be miserable.

So you see...I'm not completely selfish and awful. I wouldn't want one of my sisters in the gospel to face this kind of situation either.

[liz3564]

liz,

We may be approaching a rudimentary definition of "oneness" here.

Tell me if I'm getting close.

You are able to function better in your roles as wife/mother/woman because of the "unique" relationship you have with your husband. This relationship leads to a sense of completeness that cannot be derived from any other relationship. Is the reverse true? Is he able to function better as a husband/father/man as a result of his "unique" relationship to you? If so, you two are taking each other "oneness".

Does the danger (i'm not sure that's the right word) of PM come from knowing that a woman can't "complete" her man? If their union does all the things you describe for her, but not for him, then they're not equal. If he needs/wants more than she can give, then she's less then he.

I need to think about this some more.

OK, this is getting scary. Were you my twin in the spirit world? LOL

Yes, you and I are definitely on the same wave-length!

[KevinG]

Here's another angle to think about.

Dadof7, you mentioned earlier that those who handled monogamy best would be the ones who would likely be called to handle polygamy.  This makes complete sense to me.

OK....

My husband and I were talking about polygamy the other night.  He understands my concerns about it.  His feeling is more along the lines of "I have enough to deal with with one".  I realize I'm a lot to handle!  LOL

He said to me, "Well...if we were commanded to practice it, don't worry.  You would still be the favorite wife.  You would be the one I would always want to be with and spend time with.."

OK..so now I'm thinking....from a 2nd or 3rd wife perspective....How fair is that for them?  Why would a woman want to enter into that kind of relationship where they are second in the husband's eyes?  I know I wouldn't!  It would be miserable.

So you see...I'm not completely selfish and awful.  I wouldn't want one of my sisters in the gospel to face this kind of situation either.

I think there are many things husbands say that they will probably regret later... but that's a different topic.

Seriously, there is no amount of relationships that will in any way take away from the fact that my bride is the one who took an unpolished youth, and made a man out of him. There is no amount of time I could spend with another legally wedded spouse that would replace her efforts and sacrifices in mortality, to raise our family. She will always hold an honored place at the head of my family for that, no matter what God requires of us. If nothing else a first wives willingness to share what is most important to her, should garner her the utmost respect from her husband and anyone else in the family.

A second spouse, if she chose to accept a call to be a wife would know that coming into the relationship. That would be a factor in determining if that is something she would like to live with. I've heard the light hearted quip that half a good man is better than a whole bad one, and there may be a nugget of truth in that somewhere.

Just as it is incumbant upon us not to show favoratism to members of our current family, it would be doubly so to remember to respect each and every member of a polygamous marriage for their unique (theres that word again) and positive contribution to the family.