Why is polygamy such a hot-button topic?

[Zakuska]

alannasaunt,

My/our relationship with God is not romantic. We have a parent/child relationship.

I made the point earlier about the differences.

And there I think you are mistaken...

Is it not life Eternal to KNOW God?

Thats the same word used for sexual intercourse... So its much much more than merely a romantic vs. a parent Child relationship.

[Zakuska]

Dadof7,

However, when it comes to physical and romantic intimacy I do understand where you are coming from, and that is admittedly the most complex and problematic facet of understanding the Principle.

AMEN!

I pray I'll never have to live it. I have a hard enough time keeping one happy.

[KevinG]

Dadof7,

However, when it comes to physical and romantic intimacy I do understand where you are coming from, and that is admittedly the most complex and problematic facet of understanding the Principle.

AMEN!

I pray I'll never have to live it. I have a hard enough time keeping one happy.

Given the number of posts you and I have combined, we probably shouldn't be preaching too hard about how to give sufficient attention or time to a spouse.

Wail away sisters!

[Garden Girl]

In my opinion... we are judging what our "relationship" will be as far as intimacy and love of spouse by our experience in this earthly life...with all its faults, pettiness, wonderfulness, complexities, etc., etc. As I alluded earlier, I believe we will be in for some surprises, about our capacity to love in a deeper, different, more universal or godly sense...(I have personally experienced just a glimpse of this love, and I cannot tell you the depth of what I felt in my very core for everyone I saw... it was humbling, and left me with a sense of wonder and thanksgiving for having been given such a glimpse... I understand more the scripture "and God so loved the world..." and the Savior's love of all of us that he would suffer for our sins in his atoning sacrifice). Certainly our spouse, family, including all those we have been sealed to in this lifetime, will be of the utmost importance and most fulfilling of relationships... but I do believe our perspective will be very different...

And as far as Redeemed's comments, she needs to read the Bible about Jacob whose name was changed to Israel, and his FOUR wives, from whence came God's chosen people... the twelve tribes of Israel... the children of Israel... God's chosen people... from Jacob's polygamous marriage...

Garden Girl

[truth dancer]

Hi Charity... you wrote,

truth dancer, my husband has my permission to marry again, if I precede him. I don't know who she might be, but I know I will be all right with whoever he choses. After all, I know he can chose wisely because he chose me.

I think you may have your posters mixed up a little. I have not participated in this thread.

~dancer~

[USU78]

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one {echad} flesh.

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one {echad} LORD

9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.  10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.  11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee.  Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one {echad?}, as we are.

As husband and wife are to one another, so are the Master and the Father . . . and those whom the Master has saved out of the world with the Master: There can indeed be multiple persons in an echad relationship, assuming one of those in oneness is the Master.

[alannasaunt]

I agree completely Dad. I think this verse should be considered with what you have said.

1 Cor. 6: 17

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Does not Chirst pray that we will all be one as they are one?

Edit to post directly to aunt.

I don't think this is "oneness" in the same context as a husband and wife would be one. Otherwise, everybody would be married to everybody else and it would in a sense be a free love relationship.

This verse would seem to go more to being one in purpose. The Father and Christ are two separate beings but one in purpose. That sort of thing.

[KevinG]

I agree completely Dad. I think this verse should be considered with what you have said.

1 Cor. 6: 17

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Does not Chirst pray that we will all be one as they are one?

Edit to post directly to aunt.

I don't think this is "oneness" in the same context as a husband and wife would be one. Otherwise, everybody would be married to everybody else and it would in a sense be a free love relationship.

This verse would seem to go more to being one in purpose. The Father and Christ are two separate beings but one in purpose. That sort of thing.

That sort of gets back to my question... Is being one in "romantic love" be higher than being one in purpose and knowledge? Are the two mutually exclusive to a couple vs. a trio, a quartet, etc?

(And don't forget that the Father and Son are also one with the Holy Ghost).

P.S. I'm not trying to harass you Alaanasaunt, I'm just trying to refine the assumptions and the questions. If you feel I've asked too many times I'll stop asking.

[alannasaunt]

This is probably the point at which our understanding diverges. I see what you are saying, but without having to actually be called to and live plural marriage, I cannot say for certain that two halves of a whole, are any less moral or right in the eyes of God than three thirds of a whole, especially when God commands it.

Similarly, I have found that the love between seven children did not divide the love between the first two, but multiplied that love. (Apples and oranges in a sense, but similar in that it is a more complex and different relationship as people are added to a family, regardless of that relationship being romantic or brotherly).

My oldest was very excited about having our third child, because he was under the impression we were going to trade in his rather noisy baby sister on a better model. We didn't know this until a few days before the third childs birth, and he asked a few clarifying questions. He eventually came to grips with the fact that he was now going to share us with two noisy baby sisters, but it wasn't easy (and still seems to cause him some heartburn from time to time even as a Teen). Strangely enough the other four siblings were easier for him to welcome into the world.

Regarding romantic vs. godly love... As I get older, (and perhaps this is due to my body breaking down as opposed to my spirit growing ) I have come to value and cherish the friendship and respect part of my marital relationship as much as the romatic part, if not more. The kind of intimacy I value the most from my wife is in her role as a prophetess, counselor and companion- and serving her is in ways synonymous with loving her and vice versa. The same kinds of things I value highly in my relationship with God.

However, when it comes to physical and romantic intimacy I do understand where you are coming from, and that is admittedly the most complex and problematic facet of understanding the Principle.

Plato would have argued that brotherly love is a higher form than romantic love, but he was probably a tired middle aged man when he said that too.

Children are a riot...aren't they?

I think that godly love includes the romantic love.

Note: let me clarify here...To me, romantic love is not just physical. When I say "romance" or "intimacy", I am talking about way more than sex. I am talking about the totality of the marriage relationship. It is the combination of all the qualities you mentioned and more.

Without romantic love, there would be no gospel as we know it. There would be no eternal progression.

BTW, wasn't Plato the guy who thought that women were here to be sexual servants to men. I can't quote the source, I just remember reading this somewhere, long ago, in a place far, far away....

[alannasaunt]

I agree completely Dad. I think this verse should be considered with what you have said.

1 Cor. 6: 17

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Does not Chirst pray that we will all be one as they are one?

Edit to post directly to aunt.

I don't think this is "oneness" in the same context as a husband and wife would be one. Otherwise, everybody would be married to everybody else and it would in a sense be a free love relationship.

This verse would seem to go more to being one in purpose. The Father and Christ are two separate beings but one in purpose. That sort of thing.

That sort of gets back to my question... Is being one in "romantic love" be higher than being one in purpose and knowledge? Are the two mutually exclusive to a couple vs. a trio, a quartet, etc?

(And don't forget that the Father and Son are also one with the Holy Ghost).

P.S. I'm not trying to harass you Alaanasaunt, I'm just trying to refine the assumptions and the questions. If you feel I've asked too many times I'll stop asking.

No, we're good. Having to clarify to you, helps me clarify to myself. I, in no way, feel harassed. I've really enjoyed this discussion. I like (need) to be able to address this issue with people who can be respectful and calm even if we disagree.

I do believe that romantic love (as described above) is the highest form of love because without it, there would be nothing else. We have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. We are the products of their romantic love.

Let me see if I can come up with a reasonable example...

Hmmm...if I ever get to remarry and be sealed and become perfected in the CK with my husband, certainly our romantic love (as described above) will include a oneness of purpose and knowledge. It is my understanding that this purpose and knowledge will be shared by everyone in the CK. The romantic love (to my understanding) will be reserved to those who are sealed as husband and wife.

All lawyers may be notaries, but not all notaries are lawyers. Make sense?

[Dale]

People find it so repugnant that people are tempted to not discuss things with reason.

[KevinG]

I agree completely Dad. I think this verse should be considered with what you have said.

1 Cor. 6: 17

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Does not Chirst pray that we will all be one as they are one?

Edit to post directly to aunt.

I don't think this is "oneness" in the same context as a husband and wife would be one. Otherwise, everybody would be married to everybody else and it would in a sense be a free love relationship.

This verse would seem to go more to being one in purpose. The Father and Christ are two separate beings but one in purpose. That sort of thing.

That sort of gets back to my question... Is being one in "romantic love" be higher than being one in purpose and knowledge? Are the two mutually exclusive to a couple vs. a trio, a quartet, etc?

(And don't forget that the Father and Son are also one with the Holy Ghost).

P.S. I'm not trying to harass you Alaanasaunt, I'm just trying to refine the assumptions and the questions. If you feel I've asked too many times I'll stop asking.

No, we're good. Having to clarify to you, helps me clarify to myself. I, in no way, feel harassed. I've really enjoyed this discussion. I like (need) to be able to address this issue with people who can be respectful and calm even if we disagree.

I do believe that romantic love (as described above) is the highest form of love because without it, there would be nothing else. We have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. We are the products of their romantic love.

Let me see if I can come up with a reasonable example...

Hmmm...if I ever get to remarry and be sealed and become perfected in the CK with my husband, certainly our romantic love (as described above) will include a oneness of purpose and knowledge. It is my understanding that this purpose and knowledge will be shared by everyone in the CK. The romantic love (to my understanding) will be reserved to those who are sealed as husband and wife.

All lawyers may be notaries, but not all notaries are lawyers. Make sense?

Good! I'm really enjoying this exchange too.

As I thought that is where we diverge in our opinions... This higher love (which is very hard to describe - but is not just the romantic, hormonal or other worldly type- and I follow you there) for you implies an exclusivity with one other partner. I understand your view. I just don't know if my old assumptions about that type of love and intimacy does imply being exclusive to one other person.

I do not however think that once it is shared with another person in a marriage relationship that opens it up to unlimited partners. (For example a widower who falls in love again does not then reject the notion that his first love was special or somehow not exclusive and by default then believe in free love or multiple relationships).

I would say however that the holiest and purest type of love should be limited to those relationships that God ordains, be they monogomy (the default mode, even in the scriptures) or other forms as God commands them. This line of thought (for me) lines up neatly with the idea of chastity, and not turning one's heart outside of the marriage bond. It is the idea that God ordains the time, place and method, and from that comes a pure, sinless relationship.

Since I've gotten so deep into my thoughts on this I do want to emphasise that my understanding is that God does not ordain polygamy at this time as something we practice, and that any marriage practice not ordained of Him is a sin. I try to understand the early Saints so that I do not make unrighteous judgements, but that does not mean I would go against the commandments of the Prophets in these matters, and as a matter of course, monogamy has been the default mode throughout dispensations, and is now according to our laws the practice of our Church. I clearly sustain the Brethren on that count.

[alannasaunt]

I agree completely Dad. I think this verse should be considered with what you have said.

1 Cor. 6: 17

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Does not Chirst pray that we will all be one as they are one?

Edit to post directly to aunt.

I don't think this is "oneness" in the same context as a husband and wife would be one. Otherwise, everybody would be married to everybody else and it would in a sense be a free love relationship.

This verse would seem to go more to being one in purpose. The Father and Christ are two separate beings but one in purpose. That sort of thing.

That sort of gets back to my question... Is being one in "romantic love" be higher than being one in purpose and knowledge? Are the two mutually exclusive to a couple vs. a trio, a quartet, etc?

(And don't forget that the Father and Son are also one with the Holy Ghost).

P.S. I'm not trying to harass you Alaanasaunt, I'm just trying to refine the assumptions and the questions. If you feel I've asked too many times I'll stop asking.

No, we're good. Having to clarify to you, helps me clarify to myself. I, in no way, feel harassed. I've really enjoyed this discussion. I like (need) to be able to address this issue with people who can be respectful and calm even if we disagree.

I do believe that romantic love (as described above) is the highest form of love because without it, there would be nothing else. We have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. We are the products of their romantic love.

Let me see if I can come up with a reasonable example...

Hmmm...if I ever get to remarry and be sealed and become perfected in the CK with my husband, certainly our romantic love (as described above) will include a oneness of purpose and knowledge. It is my understanding that this purpose and knowledge will be shared by everyone in the CK. The romantic love (to my understanding) will be reserved to those who are sealed as husband and wife.

All lawyers may be notaries, but not all notaries are lawyers. Make sense?

Good! I'm really enjoying this exchange too.

As I thought that is where we diverge in our opinions... This higher love (which is very hard to describe - but is not just the romantic, hormonal or other worldly type- and I follow you there) for you implies an exclusivity with one other partner. I understand your view. I just don't know if my old assumptions about that type of love and intimacy does imply being exclusive to one other person.

I do not however think that once it is shared with another person in a marriage relationship that opens it up to unlimited partners. (For example a widower who falls in love again does not then reject the notion that his first love was special or somehow not exclusive and by default then believe in free love or multiple relationships).

I would say however that the holiest and purest type of love should be limited to those relationships that God ordains, be they monogomy (the default mode, even in the scriptures) or other forms as God commands them. This line of thought (for me) lines up neatly with the idea of chastity, and not turning one's heart outside of the marriage bond. It is the idea that God ordains the time, place and method, and from that comes a pure, sinless relationship.

Since I've gotten so deep into my thoughts on this I do want to emphasise that my understanding is that God does not ordain polygamy at this time as something we practice, and that any marriage practice not ordained of Him is a sin. I try to understand the early Saints so that I do not make unrighteous judgements, but that does not mean I would go against the commandments of the Prophets in these matters, and as a matter of course, monogamy has been the default mode throughout dispensations, and is now according to our laws the practice of our Church. I clearly sustain the Brethren on that count.

I agree completely Dad. I think this verse should be considered with what you have said.

1 Cor. 6: 17

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Does not Chirst pray that we will all be one as they are one?

I don't think this is "oneness" in the same context as a husband and wife would be one. Otherwise, everybody would be married to everybody else and it would in a sense be a free love relationship. 

I do not however think that once it is shared with another person in a marriage relationship that opens it up to unlimited partners. 

I don't believe in the free love thing, either. I was simply pointing out that I didn't think that scripture really applied to the "oneness" of marriage.

Nor do I fault the early church members who believed they were trying to follow God's commands. As I stated in the Introduction forum, I have been having some doubts about the church (specifically some of it's history). This is one of those areas.

I read things about the possible exist of multiple versions of Section 132 (some of which supposedly don't mention PM), JS deception of Emma regarding some of his sealings, the possible JS/Cochranite connection, that JS may have intended for PM to be strictly for the CK and BY decided to it more resemble the OT version etc. Then I start to wonder if this was really commanded to the modern church or not... I don't fault the early members for this. I believe most people do the best they can. However, if our leaders were off base, then what else were they off base about.

I don't want to derail the thread, so I won't continue here with this train of thought. As I have stated before, I am one of the single women in the church. I don't expect to get remarried/sealed in this lifetime. So, this PM thing (if it's really doctrine) hits close to home. I may be told one day that entering PM will be the only way I can have a CM.

[KevinG]

I think your questions are quite reasonable and understandable. The only thing I would counsel (and this would go accross the board with all of the scriptures) is that when you ask for clarity, after having an enjoyable discussion with others, ultimately you take the questions to God, and know that the answers will come from Him, in the time you need them (not always want them).

In the mean time attend the Temple knowing that Temple worthiness does not require one to take a hard stand on the "Polygamy - of God or of man?" question. Above all dear sister you deserve to be a full partner in a marriage, respected and loved with the deepest and highest love possible... and that if you live according to God's laws you will be afforded that priveledge in this life or the next.

Now go tell those Elders to repent and get in line for the chance to honor you- a daughter of God!

[alannasaunt]

I think your questions are quite reasonable and understandable. The only thing I would counsel (and this would go accross the board with all of the scriptures) is that when you ask for clarity, after having an enjoyable discussion with others, ultimately you take the questions to God, and know that the answers will come from Him, in the time you need them (not always want them).

In the mean time attend the Temple knowing that Temple worthiness does not require one to take a hard stand on the "Polygamy - of God or of man?" question. Above all dear sister you deserve to be a full partner in a marriage, respected and loved with the deepest and highest love possible... and that if you live according to God's laws you will be afforded that priveledge in this life or the next.

Now go tell those Elders to repent and get in line for the chance to honor you- a daughter of God!

You're a sweetie.

Ditto, about God not giving answers when you want them. I've had a hard time with this issue for about 30 years now.

I've really enjoyed this exchange. Thanks.

[KevinG]

Thank you. This was really a treat for me too (in between editing grammar mistakes out of my book manuscript -yuck!). As Dale pointed out it's a hard topic to see objectively, and I enjoyed the conversation today.

BTW- Thanks for the compliment, but getting to this level of "sweetieness" took a good 18 years of marital refinement.

[onelowerlight]

So...in the realm of your unbiased opinion, would you also be accepting of polyandry(polygamy in reverse) if it was sanctioned by God? Would that concept be any more difficult for you to accept?

Well, I've wondered about the whole polyandry thing, and I don't think I could ever believe in it. This is because, as it is the woman's role to give birth to the children, in a polyandrous family, there'd always be this question in the back of everyone's mind: "who's your daddy?" Of course, this means that polyandry is fundamentally different from polygamy, so you'd run up with problems if you tried to compare them both.

So, for me, it's a lot easier for me to imagine that I'm a woman and in a polygamous situation. And if that were the case, I would say, my feelings on plural marriage would depend almost completely on this question: what kind of a relationship do I have with my sister wives?

If my sister wives are people that I hardly know, I would have a very, very hard time practicing plural marriage. I would probably feel that my husband were getting stolen. I would also feel this way if rivalries and unfriendly feelings developed.

However, if I were good friends with my sister wives, and they were good friends with me, dependable, loyal, etc, once my social conditioning were overcome I honestly don't think that plural marriage would be a difficult thing for me to swallow.

The thing I've spent a lot more time wondering about is this: what would it be like to be the husband of multiple wives? How would I feel about something like that? And so, I'd like to ask YOU that question: how would you feel to be the husband of multiple wives?

This is an interesting thing to talk about! I used to do this all the time with my missionary companions, after we'd gone to bed. Led to some very interesting discussions.

[onelowerlight]

Aha, but this is where the fun begins!

QUOTE (cinepro @ May 15 2006, 12:21 PM)

If God demands He be the only one we love in a theological sense, why is it wrong for a woman to demand she be the only one a man loves in a marital sense? 

Thank you! 

You phrased this question so much better than I have managed to.

This is my issue as well.

But the truth is...we DO love multiple Gods! And yet, in doing so, we are only devoted to Heavenly Father!

Jesus Christ is a God

Heavenly Father is a God

The Holy Ghost, in his right, is a God

And they are one Godhead, but separate beings as well!

In other words, we don't have to draw away our love from Heavenly Father in order to love Jesus. We can love them both together - and yet be totally, 100% dedicated to both of them AND the Holy Ghost all at the same time!

A candle doesn't lose any flame by lighting another candle, and my love for Heavenly Father is not diminished by my love for Jesus Christ. After all, they are so perfectly unified in all that they do, how can I possibly love Heavenly Father and NOT love Jesus Christ?

Now, apply that to the whole issue of plural marriage, and I think you'll see the possibility of something absolutely beautiful. Imagine multiple women so united that they can share the same husband and realize that the love he shares for any one of them is love that he shares for all of them. And furthermore, imagine being a husband, and realizing loving each of your wives in such a way that your love of one doesn't diminish your love of another. That, all together, you are one family, able to give love to all and receive love from all as if you were giving and receiving love from one.

I think that that's an ideal plural marriage. Of course, it doesn't sound very realistic - but most worthy goals tend to test the limits of realism.

[alannasaunt]

So...in the realm of your unbiased opinion, would you also be accepting of polyandry(polygamy in reverse) if it was sanctioned by God? Would that concept be any more difficult for you to accept?

Well, I've wondered about the whole polyandry thing, and I don't think I could ever believe in it. This is because, as it is the woman's role to give birth to the children, in a polyandrous family, there'd always be this question in the back of everyone's mind: "who's your daddy?" Of course, this means that polyandry is fundamentally different from polygamy, so you'd run up with problems if you tried to compare them both.

So, for me, it's a lot easier for me to imagine that I'm a woman and in a polygamous situation. And if that were the case, I would say, my feelings on plural marriage would depend almost completely on this question: what kind of a relationship do I have with my sister wives?

If my sister wives are people that I hardly know, I would have a very, very hard time practicing plural marriage. I would probably feel that my husband were getting stolen. I would also feel this way if rivalries and unfriendly feelings developed.

However, if I were good friends with my sister wives, and they were good friends with me, dependable, loyal, etc, once my social conditioning were overcome I honestly don't think that plural marriage would be a difficult thing for me to swallow.

The thing I've spent a lot more time wondering about is this: what would it be like to be the husband of multiple wives? How would I feel about something like that? And so, I'd like to ask YOU that question: how would you feel to be the husband of multiple wives?

This is an interesting thing to talk about! I used to do this all the time with my missionary companions, after we'd gone to bed. Led to some very interesting discussions.

This wasn't addressed to me, but...

The question of paternity would definitely be a problem here on earth. However, it would not be a problem in the CK. So, polyandry cannot be ruled out of the eternal equation.

For me, the relationship between the "sister-wives"...(geez, I really don't like that term...it just seems like propaganda to me) is irrelavant to whether the concept is a good one or not.

Trying to imagine this from a husband's perspective...hmmm...

That would be complicated, too. Would I be the dominant ruler who feels all powerful as I sit with my harem around the dinner table? Would I feel like the outsider looking at all these gal-pals? Would I feel grateful for having all these lovers/friends/companions? Or would I feel like I was being used as just a sperm-donor, meal-ticket? Would I be happy to be surrounded by all these women/children? Or would I be sad that I didn't have enough time to give each one the time they deserve? Would I have happy families or would I have to work constantly to keep the peace? Would having all these sex partners be great? What would it be like if they were just "doing as commanded"? Would providing for all these people leave me too tired to care? etc

In short, I don't know what it would be like to be a polygamous husband. I imagine monogamy would be easier for him as well.

[alannasaunt]

Now, apply that to the whole issue of plural marriage, and I think you'll see the possibility of something absolutely beautiful. Imagine multiple women so united that they can share the same husband and realize that the love he shares for any one of them is love that he shares for all of them. And furthermore, imagine being a husband, and realizing loving each of your wives in such a way that your love of one doesn't diminish your love of another. That, all together, you are one family, able to give love to all and receive love from all as if you were giving and receiving love from one.

This is exactly how it would be if all the wives were from Stepford.

[KevinG]

If a husband really loved his wife(s) I imagine it would be very difficult for him to live and practice polygamy. When we had a female friend live in our home and help us with the chidlren after one of my wifes surgeries it was hard enough not to feel like I was taking advantage of one or neglecting the other, even though romantic attraction wasn't even an issue with the friend.

This would certainly be a difficult thing to live.

Not being a person who can stand to be away from loved ones for any extended period of time, I cannot fathom those, like Brother Gardner (ancestor of the Olympic wrestler) who set up seperate households for each wife and visited them in rotation over periods of months and years. That couldn't have been pleasant for anyone. Yet he managed to provide well for them all physically.

[onelowerlight]

sorry, I was responding to Redeemed and then saw that that discussion had already been moved elsewhere. Which was what I was going to suggest.

[onelowerlight]

Trying to imagine this from a husband's perspective...hmmm...

That would be complicated, too. Would I be the dominant ruler who feels all powerful as I sit with my harem around the dinner table? Would I feel like the outsider looking at all these gal-pals? Would I feel grateful for having all these lovers/friends/companions? Or would I feel like I was being used as just a sperm-donor, meal-ticket? Would I be happy to be surrounded by all these women/children? Or would I be sad that I didn't have enough time to give each one the time they deserve? Would I have happy families or would I have to work constantly to keep the peace? Would having all these sex partners be great? What would it be like if they were just "doing as commanded"? Would providing for all these people leave me too tired to care? etc

Alannasaunt, you betray a falacy in your thinking - you're trying to understand polygamous issues from an entirely monogamous mindset. If that's the way you approach these issues, then you'll end up reaching for cliches (such as the Stepford thing) to help you conceptualize this issue.

The trick is to approach the issue from a totally new mindset - what they call, in zen, a "beginner mind." Because if you were actually practicing polygamy, your mindset would be totally different than it is right now.

That's what I realized the more I thought about it. I realized that I had to think in a new and different way than I was used to in order to understand the issue and actually visualize myself in a plural marriage that was believable.

And, to continue, I would say that the point at which you and Dadof7 diverge is the point at which your social conditioning in a modern, monogamous society becomes a stronger factor in your worldview and critical thinking process. So, the trick in reconciling yourself with these issues is not so much about finding the problem with your faith or your testimony so much as it is finding a new way to think about it. Kind of the way a person who only exists in two dimensions has to find a new way of thinking about things in order to understand the concept of three dimensions.

[Del March]

Combined answers => long post.

---

Let's face it...I know that physical intimacy does not make the whole of a marriage, but no one can deny that it is an important part of it.  That's why divorces happen when spouses are caught cheating!

If I caught my husband cheating, it's not the sex part that would hurt me, it's the lying part, the hiding, the keeping secrets from me. In particular, it would be the knowledge that he developed an emotional intimacy with someone else without ever telling me. That would hurt. Compared to that, the fact that he had sex with someone else would be pretty much irrelevant.

For me, and I think for most women, the sexual relationship is very emotional.

Precisely: it's the emotional intimacy that would cause me problems, not the sex. I'd much rather he had a purely sexual affair than a platonic romance or even deep friendship with a woman in secret.

In addition to creating children, it is also a further expression of love between husband and wife.  It is very sacred, very personal, and I can only envision sharing that kind of intimacy with one person.

I don't, as long as everyone involved knows about it. If I had two husbands who both knew about each other and accepted it, I don't think I would mind having that kind of intimacy with both of them.

I can't imagine a loving Heavenly Father not understanding that.

I rather think it's the other way around It's not about Him not understanding us, it's about us not understanding Him, and not even really understanding ourselves in fact.

---

Fidelity would not be a pointless concept in Polygamy any more than it is in monogamy.

Agreed. Fidelity is about sticking to what we legally and lawfully have. Whether it's one, two or 20 spouses.

Now for the real question, how does "oneness" between three adults make more or less sense than "oneness" between two adults?

The one difference I would see is the matter of limitations. Right now, because I have only one husband, I can share everything with him, because there is nothing about me he isn't concerned with. But if I had two husbands, then there could be things that would pertain to only either of them, that I shouldn't share with the other.

This is a classic woman's problem when thinking of plural marriage: "he wouldn't share everything with me anymore" which leads to "we wouldn't be one anymore". However, I don't see this "not sharing everything with one's spouse" as being a real problem. Many of us live in such situations and don't see anything wrong with it: whether we are keeping a friend's secret, or living in a workplace that our spouse cannot visit (my husband's case), or working in a leadership position in the Church and or in any other position that requires us to maintain a certain degree of discretion, many of us are in fact hiding things from our spouses. But our spouses don't mind, because they know we are hiding that stuff and why, and they certainly don't think those secrets and limitations reduce their couple's oneness.

So I can imagine that, in a loving plural marriage, each wife would know that the husband is keeping secrets about the other wives, but would also find that normal, and wouldn't think that those secrets diminish her own intimacy with him. Quite the contrary in fact: knowing that my husband keeps secrets about me even to his other wives would make me feel closer to him!

---

The reason I say fidelity would be a pointless concept is because once my husband starts to share himself with another the way he would share himself with me, then our relationship is no longer unique. It doesn't matter how many wives we're talking about here...2 or 20 or 200.

I disagree. What makes your relationship unique is the fact that it is between the two of you. Your husband could marry 1000 women that he still would NEVER have the same relationship as he has with you, because none of those other women would be you.

He is no longer "mine". This means I could no longer be "his".

I'd say it all depends on what you call "mine" and "his". Even if my husband married another woman, I would still be his wife, and he would still be my husband. He would still be "mine", and I would still be "his". Asking for more "ownership" than that is asking for too much, IMO. My husband is a free being, who willingly entered into partnerships with God and with me. But his partnership with me is not an acquisition. I don't own him, even if I have claims on him. God owns him, because God payed to buy him, but I didn't pay anything, and don't own him. I also know that his relationship with God comes before his relationship with me. He is God's child before being my husband. Adding another wife to the mix wouldn't change much to my relationship with him: we would still be a partnership. He would have another partnership of equal importance, but that wouldn't in any way diminish the partnership he has with me. And both partnerships would still come second to his relationship with God anyway.

I see being married as being something to someone that no one else can or should be...unique.

And this is true no matter the number of spouses. One wife is not another wife, and the husband's relationship with each of his wives is unique.

Once he enters a romantic relationship with someone else, the effect for the first wife would be the same whether he was married to the other woman or not. The first wife's role has been diminished. The fact that her role is no longer unique diminishes her as a wife.

I disagree, again My husband could marry 1000 wives that he still would never get from any of them what I give him, because none of them would be me. I wouldn't be his only center of attention, sure, but so what? My worth, whether as an individual or as a wife, is NOT dependent on how much my husband watches me! As long as I am fulfilling my wifely duties, my worth remains exactly the same, whether my husband validates it or not.

As for the fact that other women would be able to do for him what only I can do for him for now, I would see that as a blessing, I think. It would take pressure off my shoulders, and it would insure that he gets more of those husbandly privileges, which I can only be pleased with, since I want him to be a happy and fulfilled husband.

When I said "sealing", I meant a temple marriage. Certainly, we can all be sealed, but the sealing to a spouse is not the same a sealing to a child. We are not trying to becomes gods in partnership with our children.

Precisely! Marriage is a partnership between equal and self-contained individuals. One does NOT need the other's validation to be of worth. It is CHILDREN who need their parents' validation to feel of worth, not partners.

To your question...a man and a woman...the two halves to the whole can be "one".

The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are 3, and yet one. And we are all supposed to be one with God. Obviously, there is not limitation on the number of parts in the one.

A man and A   woman can have increase and worlds without end. How do the two women become one?

The only thing two women can't have is the purely sexual aspect of a relationship. Everything else they can have (which can even turn into a problem, when a wife becomes emotionally closer to a female friend than to her husband - the GAs have spoken on those matters). I see no problem in two sister-wives becoming one, especially since they already share so much, including their God and their husband.

It has nothing to do with the difficulty of managing the relationships. It has to do with the nature of marriage. That relationship is fundamentally different than any other relationship we have.

I agree. But just because we are USED to marriage meaning "one man, one woman" doesn't mean it can only be that way. Just like a childless couple is still a family, or a one-parent family is still a family, marriage doesn't have to be restricted to only two participants to still be a marriage.

In fact, temple marriage unites, by its very form, THREE people: the husband, the wife, and God.

---

So, for me, it's a lot easier for me to imagine that I'm a woman and in a polygamous situation.  And if that were the case, I would say, my feelings on plural marriage would depend almost completely on this question: what kind of a relationship do I have with my sister wives?

My basic question too. I think the success of a plural marriage depends mostly on that: the relationship between the sister-wives.

The thing I've spent a lot more time wondering about is this: what would it be like to be the husband of multiple wives?  How would I feel about something like that?  And so, I'd like to ask YOU that question: how would you feel to be the husband of multiple wives?

If I were a man, I think I would HATE the idea of plural marriage with a passion! As others have said, being a good husband to just one wife is already a very hard thing, so several wives!? How do you make sure that all of them are having their marital needs met? How do you make sure that they all get along? How do you make sure not to look like you are favouring one wife, or abandoning another? How do you do when you feel better in the company of one of them, but you don't want the others to feel bad about it? How do you do when one of them gets on your nerves, but you don't want her to feel abandoned? And so on. I would HATE it!

Del

[KevinG]

Trying to imagine this from a husband's perspective...hmmm...

That would be complicated, too. Would I be the dominant ruler who feels all powerful as I sit with my harem around the dinner table? Would I feel like the outsider looking at all these gal-pals? Would I feel grateful for having all these lovers/friends/companions? Or would I feel like I was being used as just a sperm-donor, meal-ticket? Would I be happy to be surrounded by all these women/children? Or would I be sad that I didn't have enough time to give each one the time they deserve? Would I have happy families or would I have to work constantly to keep the peace? Would having all these sex partners be great? What would it be like if they were just "doing as commanded"? Would providing for all these people leave me too tired to care? etc

Alannasaunt, you betray a falacy in your thinking - you're trying to understand polygamous issues from an entirely monogamous mindset. If that's the way you approach these issues, then you'll end up reaching for cliches (such as the Stepford thing) to help you conceptualize this issue.

The trick is to approach the issue from a totally new mindset - what they call, in zen, a "beginner mind." Because if you were actually practicing polygamy, your mindset would be totally different than it is right now.

That's what I realized the more I thought about it. I realized that I had to think in a new and different way than I was used to in order to understand the issue and actually visualize myself in a plural marriage that was believable.

And, to continue, I would say that the point at which you and Dadof7 diverge is the point at which your social conditioning in a modern, monogamous society becomes a stronger factor in your worldview and critical thinking process. So, the trick in reconciling yourself with these issues is not so much about finding the problem with your faith or your testimony so much as it is finding a new way to think about it. Kind of the way a person who only exists in two dimensions has to find a new way of thinking about things in order to understand the concept of three dimensions.

I like the concept of a beginner mind. That fits quite well.

In fairness, life had to smack me around quite a bit to get me to the point of having a "beginner mind" about this subject.

My wife accepted the concept much earlier than I did.

I think the trick is not automatically rejecting our mores and biases without first deciding if they are consistant with eternal and God breathed principles. In this instance there is some precident for both viewpoints in traditional morality. Gaining a testimony of God's mind in the matter is the only safe position, and that may take some time, especially when it's not a current requirement of the gospel to practice it.