Why is polygamy such a hot-button topic?

[KevinG]

That was very profound Del. Especially the part of keeping confidences with our wives and with others. I hadn't thought about the role of a Priesthood holder having to keep confidences about others, even from his wife to whom he is closest too, but that is a real situation that many women accept because it is the right thing to do.

It really brings home how crucial trust is between a man and wife, especially when God's commandments often require sacrifice from them both.

The most difficult choices I've ever had to make were those where I had to do something out of respect for God, when it had to require my beloved wife to sacrifice. Those are what I call the Abrahamic tests. I cannot imagine having the kind of faith that Abraham had to have in God, not only to sacrifice his beloved boy, but to know what heartbreak it would cause to his companion of 100+ years to do so.

I do think we are sometimes tested by God to see if we are willing to love Him above all others, even our spouses. I also think the exchanges between Heavenly Father, Joseph Smith and Emma, that are alluded too in D&C 132 have a lot to do with this difficult struggle.

[onelowerlight]

Thanks for all your remarks, Del, Allana, Liz, and Dad. This is quite interesting. This is what stood out to me most recently:

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".

Question: is it possible for a man in a polygamous relationship to share everything with both or all of his wives 100% simultaneously?

Being the geeky relationship-starved BYU scary-RM that I am, my way of understanding this relates to something from my mission:

At the beginning of my mission, in a district meeting, the zone leader asked the question: "how does a companionship share the burden of the proselyting area that they cover?" In other words, does one missionary do 50% of the work and the other do the other 50%? The answer surprised me.

The answer was that both companions are 100% involved and do 100% of the work in the area. Both, simultaneously, at 100%. Any other way, and there isn't true companionship unity. It's not like one companion teaches the investigators whose last names start with A thru M, and the second N thru Z. They both are 100% involved and 100% of the work in the area is both of theirs.

I suppose that this, ideally (in a Stepford world) is where Polygamy is supposed to be. That the husband shares 100% with his first wife and also 100% with his second. Kind of hard for our two dimensional monogomous minds to undersand, but I don't think it's impossible.

Anyways, that's my take on this question. What's all of yours?

[cjcampbell]

I think one of the important things to remember is that no one can enter exaltation in the celestial kingdom unless they are willing to be completely obedient to God. We also know that exaltation implies complete happiness. One may surmise, then, that if plural marriage is one of the requirements for entrance into exaltation that those who are not willing to obey every law given to them by God will not be exalted. Those who are exalted will by definition be happy with whatever commandments God gives them, whether those commandments involve plural marriage or not. So, either God will not give you a commandment you are not willing to obey, or you will change your attitude and accept whatever commandment that God gives to you.

It seems a lot of people are too willing to judge God. If it is not plural marriage, it is some other issue that they do not like. But in the end the choice is yours. Either you are willing to meekly submit to whatever God commands or you are not. If you are not, you will not receive exaltation or any kind of eternal marriage at all.

[KevinG]

Question: is it possible for a man in a polygamous relationship to share everything with both or all of his wives 100% simultaneously?

I think a man could not possibly share everything with multiple spouses. Each spouse would have to know that he was responsible with their private admissions of affection, worry, joy and sorrow, just as my wife trusts me with the sacredness her innermost thoughts now.

Ironically this is a burden the husband in a polygamous relationship would have to carry all on his own. The sacredness of what one wife shared with him privately could never be shared with another without causing irreversible damage to the trust he had with all of his relationships.

Likewise any difficulties, disagreements or troubles experienced with one spouse would have to be handled by the husband without taking it outside of that relationship. I have a particular dislike for the practice of dealing with marital issues using third parties as a substitute for dealing directly with the spouse. (Counselors should be used only with the knowledge and cooperation of a spouse as long as the issues don't invlove abuse or neglect).

A good rule for a polygamous household would be that no one consoles the husband or takes time from the husbands other wives as long as there is an unresolved issue with another wife. In other words, "go fix your relationship with ______ before you discuss anything with me."

[alannasaunt]

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.

The Stepford comment was just a joke.

I think the premise that objections to PM are the result of social condition are an over simplification.

When I was trying to see this from a man's perspective, I was trying to envision the various possible scenarios that could arise. There are accounts of the difficulties men had as well. Also, since I have never been socially conditioned to be a man, I don't think that would be a factor.

You say that if I were practicing polygamy, my mindset would be totally different. We have quite a few examples of polygamists who did not have a totally different mindset. Sarah and Hagar had problems. Leah and Rachel had problems. There are many stories from the modern church describing the difficulties the PM folks faced. Hundreds of those marriages (I read the # 1600 somewhere) ended in divorce. Even those that did not end in divorce were not always happy. It was often an "endure tothe end" kind of thing. We don't have details of the wives of David and Solomon's hundreds of women, but how happy could they have been? How many of them had a wedding night, then never spent another moment with their husband? Consequently, how many of them never had children? Even if they did rotate among each woman, it would be months/years before their turn came around again. So, even though the scriptures say David and Solomon were not sinful in those marriages, how good could those marriages have been for the women?

I have read stories of current PMs in other countries...it ain't all sweetness and light.

As pointed out by Dadof7, monogamy has been the default all through the ages. Why do you think that is?

Please, trust me when I tell you...it would be great if just breaking social conditioning could make this alright. I really do believe that there is an inborn longing in most people to find their other half....not their other third, fourth, fifth, etc.

I do believe that most people have

[onelowerlight]

I think a man could not possibly share everything with multiple spouses. Each spouse would have to know that he was responsible with their private admissions of affection, worry, joy and sorrow, just as my wife trusts me with the sacredness her innermost thoughts now.

Ironically this is a burden the husband in a polygamous relationship would have to carry all on his own. The sacredness of what one wife shared with him privately could never be shared with another without causing irreversible damage to the trust he had with all of his relationships.

Likewise any difficulties, disagreements or troubles experienced with one spouse would have to be handled by the husband without taking it outside of that relationship. I have a particular dislike for the practice of dealing with marital issues using third parties as a substitute for dealing directly with the spouse. (Counselors should be used only with the knowledge and cooperation of a spouse as long as the issues don't invlove abuse or neglect).

Interesting. Being the relationship-starved BYU sophomore that I am, I certainly don't have the same insight on this issue that you have.

So, here's a follow up question: what are the things that would not be possible to share 100% simultaneously will all wives, and what are the things that would have to be kept confidential?

[Nighthawke]

The trick is to approach the issue from a totally new mindset - what they call, in zen, a "beginner mind."

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.

I totally agree with onelowerlight about having a new mindset when approaching this issue. This is key if one truly wants to understand the principle.

[KevinG]

I think a man could not possibly share everything with multiple spouses. Each spouse would have to know that he was responsible with their private admissions of affection, worry, joy and sorrow, just as my wife trusts me with the sacredness her innermost thoughts now.

Ironically this is a burden the husband in a polygamous relationship would have to carry all on his own. The sacredness of what one wife shared with him privately could never be shared with another without causing irreversible damage to the trust he had with all of his relationships.

Likewise any difficulties, disagreements or troubles experienced with one spouse would have to be handled by the husband without taking it outside of that relationship. I have a particular dislike for the practice of dealing with marital issues using third parties as a substitute for dealing directly with the spouse. (Counselors should be used only with the knowledge and cooperation of a spouse as long as the issues don't invlove abuse or neglect).

Interesting. Being the relationship-starved BYU sophomore that I am, I certainly don't have the same insight on this issue that you have.

So, here's a follow up question: what are the things that would not be possible to share 100% simultaneously will all wives, and what are the things that would have to be kept confidential?

In a nutshell the same things a wife would want kept private in a monogamous relationship. Disagreements, fears, hurts, intimacy, sins, personal revelations, etc...

Only those details that a spouse gives permission to share should be shared.

My insights come from marriage of course, but also some time as a priesthood leader taking confessions (lite, I haven't been a Bishop yet, so the mortal stuff got referred to him), and professionally giving career counsel, interviewing professionals, and then knowing what not to tell their superiors.

I can see the difficult process of trying to reconcile two disagreeing adults without breaking confidences between them. I wouldn't take a woman into my family unless she clearly understood that my first wife had my complete fidelity when it came to her personal business. Of course that applies to relationships in conjunction with monogamous marriage too (I don't use the chidlren or friends as sounding boards for my marital troubles, big or little) but the closeness of a marital relationship would make this even more important and more difficult to manage. Which kind of gets back to the traditional view of oneness and how it might differ in a polygamous relationship.

This I believe is the one area that would be irrevocably different between monogamy and polygamy. The private places between a man and wife, multiplied and protected by a husband for multiple partners. It would be a sacred and difficult burden at times.

(Free advice warning- remember this principle when you get married. There are some things your spouse will need you to keep sacred, even when you are completely angry at them, even when others want to help you, and even when you are in a disagreement with them. Parents, friends and others should not ever know these things, and you should even keep them private and out of arguments even when no one else but you and your spouse are around. A confession of fear, hopes or intimacy should never be a violated trust.)

[alannasaunt]

Hi Del,

This has been a long thread and I'm getting kind of tired so I won't respond to each thing.

I think it is safe to say that you and I see marriage in very different terms. That's ok. I think we both did a good job of stating our view points. As I told Dadof7, it's nice just to be able to have a respectful, calm discussion even when we don't agree. You're post was just that...respectful and calm...thank you. Perhaps we can just agree to disagree.

Well, I do have to comment on the secrets thing. I completely understand the necessity of keeping confidences in a PM setting. I would also say that this would negate the possibility of a husband being "one" with any of his wives. Again, there's a reason that monogamy is the default state of marriage.

cjcampbell,

I'm not sure I understood your post. Are you saying that PM is a requirement for the CK or only IF it's commanded...

I have never understood that PM was a requirement for exaltation. Celestial marriage is a requirement, but the two are not synonamous.

It's getting late for me. My mind is getting fuzzy. But I do love this exchange.

[Nighthawke]

I have read stories of current PMs in other countries...it ain't all sweetness and light.

Neither is monogamous marriage.

As for the high divorce rate of plural marriages in pioneer Utah, yes the rate was high (18%) but it was not even close to today's monogamous marriage divorce rates (over 50%).

[KevinG]

Hi Del,

This has been a long thread and I'm getting kind of tired so I won't respond to each thing.

I think it is safe to say that you and I see marriage in very different terms. That's ok. I think we both did a good job of stating our view points. As I told Dadof7, it's nice just to be able to have a respectful, calm discussion even when we don't agree. You're post was just that...respectful and calm...thank you. Perhaps we can just agree to disagree.

Well, I do have to comment on the secrets thing. I completely understand the necessity of keeping confidences in a PM setting. I would also say that this would negate the possibility of a husband being "one" with any of his wives. Again, there's a reason that monogamy is the default state of marriage.

cjcampbell,

I'm not sure I understood your post. Are you saying that PM is a requirement for the CK or only IF it's commanded...

I have never understood that PM was a requirement for exaltation. Celestial marriage is a requirement, but the two are not synonamous.

It's getting late for me. My mind is getting fuzzy. But I do love this exchange.

Speaking for others and myself the default mode is that monogamy or polygamy isn't what determines exaltation...

It is obeying the commandments of God, regardless of what they are, that prepares us for exaltation.

The issue of polygamy being required of us, is different for people, places and times.

The more cynical part of my nature would say that the reason monogamy is the default position, is that it is a simpler arrangement, and we misunderstand and misuse it badly enough. The Principle is harder to live (I think we have agreement on that point all around) and would require a much better understanding of marriage and the eternities than most people have in order to live it. It seems to be used only in those times when the Lord is establishing a dispensation, or seeking to multiply the faithful issue of his annointed servants. the test of faith and loyalty that the Principle entails is a good refiners fire for that faithful offspring.

[cjcampbell]

cjcampbell,

I'm not sure I understood your post. Are you saying that PM is a requirement for the CK or only IF it's commanded...

Only if it is commanded.

However, it was commanded of some individuals in the past. I think it is fairly certain to be commanded of some individuals in the future. My point is, that it makes no difference. If you are not willing to live it if commanded, then what other commandments will you pick and choose from? God requires a willingness to obey all his commands, whatever they may be. Even if we personally do not receive a particular commandment, we still have to be ready and willing to accept that commandment if and when it is given.

There are certain blessings that may be obtainable except through plural marriage. We know little about life in the celestial kingdom. Whatever your hang-up is, if it keeps you from walking through the door and entering your exaltation, then it really does not matter what the commandment or even potential commandment was, does it?

[alannasaunt]

I have read stories of current PMs in other countries...it ain't all sweetness and light.

Neither is monogamous marriage.

As for the high divorce rate of plural marriages in pioneer Utah, yes the rate was high (18%) but it was not even close to today's monogamous marriage divorce rates (over 50%).

I was addressing the statement taht if I actually lived polygamy, I would see it in a totally different way. This is not to minimize the difficulties and hard work necessary for a monogamous marriage.

Granted, our modern divorce rate is very high. I think it's also true that we lived in a more evil society than the early church members did. Too bad, we can't compare the rates like we can compare monetary rates to get a more accurate picture...say 1880s dollars vs 2006 dollars...1880s divorces vs 2006 divorces...That may not make sense, if not, please forgive. Maybe I'll be clearer tomorrow.

[onelowerlight]

Alannasaunt, I see that in discussing this issue with you it would be much better for me to be a realist than an idealist. Where I'm coming from, it makes more sense to think in terms of ideals, since my personal reality of marital intimacy is something that I have yet to create. Of course, this can set up a barrier that keeps me from understanding where you're coming from. Please forgive me if I've caused pain.

About my comments about social conditioning, these are not meant to be a way of leaving a last word on the issue and leaving it all happy ever after. Rather, it is a way of opening a door to understanding just what it is about plural marriage that tends to get members of the church upset and confused. Rather than being a simplistic issue, I see it as a very complex issue. How would my world view and my conceptualization of the plan of salvation be different if I had grown up in the 1850's in Utah? How would my world view be different if I had grown up in the Millenium? What does that say about my world view now? What do I need to change, and what is better kept the same? These are not questions that have quick and easy answers, they are questions to ponder over the course of a few weeks or months. This also lends more dimensions to the plural marriage issue than "either you believe in it or you don't really have a testimony."

If my idealistic picture seems a bit too rosy and fake, remember that these current thoughts that I have on the subject are still developing (heck, being the relationship-starved geek that I am, my thoughts on ANY kind of relationship are bound to change!) However, they are not only idealistic dreams, they also reflect a degree of the reality.

I used to have problems with plural marriage until I read the account of one of my polygamist great great uncles, George Balls Reeder, and saw how he put it into practice. He didn't marry plurally until he was absolutely certain that he had 100% support and consent from his wife. His second wife was a girl that both of them knew very well, and that both of them were agreeable to enter into their family. He didn't ask this second wife's hand until he had gotten full support from both of her parents. Both wives were blessed with many children. And, from what I've read, there were not any major problems - both wives supported each other and there were not any major problems in the ten or so years that they were all involved in the plural marriage.

Now, I don't think that Uncle Reeder's marriage was without its difficulties. But I DID see that he - he AND his wives, Mary Ann and Caroline - made it work. And not only that they made it work, but that they were able to practice it honorably and at least somewhat idealistically. That shows me that even if the reality of polygamy was tainted, everyone was working towards the ideal - and not without successes. When I think about all of the failed monogomous marriages in the world all around me, and all of the intimate extramarital relationships I've seen, the fact that there really is an ideal that people are striving for, and not without success, is something that gives me hope and peace.

In short, the whole thing with the Reeders served to show me that plural marriage CAN work out! And if that's the case, plural marriage is something that I can accept - not only on a faith level, but on a humanistic level as well.

[Del March]

You say that if I were practicing polygamy, my mindset would be totally different.  We have quite a few examples of polygamists who did not have a totally different mindset.  Sarah and Hagar had problems.

The fact that Sarah was sterile and then not sterile anymore (when this sterility was the very reason Hagar had been with Abraham to start with, at Sarah's initiative!), the fact that Ishmael was the oldest son but Isaac was the son of the covenant, and the fact that Ishmael should have been considered by Sarah as her own son but was rejected when Isaac was born, all contributed in major ways to their problems.

Leah and Rachel had problems.

Heavily linked to the fact that Jacob loved Rachel romantically but not Leah, and yet got horribly tricked into marrying Leah anyway. The wife substitution must have left emotional scars in all three of them for years. And then Leah had sons, but Jacob still prefered Rachel! Leah was hurt, Rachel was jealous. Not a good situation.

There are many stories from the modern church describing the difficulties the PM folks faced. Hundreds of those marriages (I read the # 1600 somewhere) ended in divorce.  Even those that did not end in divorce were not always happy.  It was often an "endure tothe end" kind of thing.

Which is not different from what was happening with monogamous marriages.

We don't have details of the wives of David and Solomon's hundreds of women, but how happy could they have been? How many of them had a wedding night, then never  spent another moment with their husband? Consequently, how many of them never had children? Even if they did rotate among each woman, it would be months/years before their turn came around again. So, even though the scriptures say David and Solomon were not sinful in those marriages, how good could those marriages have been for the women? 

David and Solomon were kings. I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of those wives had been married exclusively for political purposes. Moreover, David and Solomon are definitely an exception where plural marriage is concerned. As said before, most plural marriages are limited to 3 or 4 wives maximum.

I have read stories of current PMs in other countries...it ain't all sweetness and light.

Do you know of any country where monogamous marriage is all sweetness and light?

As pointed out by Dadof7, monogamy has been the default all through the ages. Why do you think that is?

Certainly NOT because it insures the happiness of the spouses, especially not the wife! Happiness in marriage has been more the exception than the rule, throughout the ages, even in monogamous marriage!

You are making the basic mistakes someone mentioned at the beginning of the thread:

1- Using what are general marriage problems to criticise plural marriage, when those problems apply just as much to monogamous marriage anyway.

2- Using extreme examples of polygamy to criticise "every-day" polygamy.

If we want to discuss the PRINCIPLE of plural marriage, then we need to stick to how it is SUPPOSED to be practiced, and what difficulties can legitimately arise out of this unique situation. Otherwise, we will only end up trashing monogamous marriage along with plural marriage, given that they BOTH have horrendous track records!

I really do believe that there is an inborn longing in most people to find their other half....not their other third, fourth, fifth, etc.

How can we know that it is inborn?

Del

[onelowerlight]

In a nutshell the same things a wife would want kept private in a monogamous relationship. Disagreements, fears, hurts, intimacy, sins, personal revelations, etc...

Only those details that a spouse gives permission to share should be shared.

Aha! So, once again, it comes down to the relationship between the sister wives. This seems to be the key in all things polygamous.

As an aside, isn't it wonderful how much plural marriage differs from the social norms of intimacy in the world today? Open marriages, multiple partners, cohabitation...I see it all around me. I think I taught more cohabitators and intimately involved single adults as a missionary than married individuals. Compared to all of this stuff, plural marriage is heavenly!

[Del March]

Perhaps we can just agree to disagree.

That was a given, as far as I was concerned

Well, I do have to comment on the secrets thing.  I completely understand the necessity of keeping confidences in a PM setting. I would also say that this would negate the possibility of a husband being "one" with any of his wives.  Again, there's a reason that monogamy is the default state of marriage.

Except that, as I said, even in our monogamous marriages, we do keep secrets from our spouses, and yet that doesn't prevent us from being one with them. So I really don't see why it should be any different in a plural marriage. What does it matter if the secrets my husband is keeping are those of my sister-wife, those of Sister Smith at Church, or his sister's ??

Del

[KevinG]

Del, once again good points. I observe that Jacob's problems stemmed from his unequal treatement of his offspring and the jealousy that it caused. This is probably the result of his not being as respectful of his first wife (whom he felt was a bait and switch) and the subsequent loss of Joesph's mother. The whole affair could have been better dealt with if he'd swollowed his disappointments, and treated his wives more equitably. Mind you the kids might have misbehaved anyway, but he sure gave them some fodder for their troubles.

and onelowerlight,

Aha! So, once again, it comes down to the relationship between the sister wives. This seems to be the key in all things polygamous.

As an aside, isn't it wonderful how much plural marriage differs from the social norms of intimacy in the world today? Open marriages, multiple partners, cohabitation...I see it all around me. I think I taught more cohabitators and intimately involved single adults as a missionary than married individuals. Compared to all of this stuff, plural marriage is heavenly!

I agree... it is ironic that the world in general accepts multiple partners without the security of the eternal marriage covenant, while the early Saints are sometimes ridiculed for providing that cevenant to multiple partners. During senate hearings on polygamy the Mormon Senator Reed Smoot reportedly told a Senator who opposed polygamy, yet who had a mistress, "I am a polygamist who does not polyg, while you sir are a monogamist who does not monog!"

[cjcampbell]

In a nutshell the same things a wife would want kept private in a monogamous relationship. Disagreements, fears, hurts, intimacy, sins, personal revelations, etc...

Only those details that a spouse gives permission to share should be shared.

Aha! So, once again, it comes down to the relationship between the sister wives. This seems to be the key in all things polygamous.

As an aside, isn't it wonderful how much plural marriage differs from the social norms of intimacy in the world today? Open marriages, multiple partners, cohabitation...I see it all around me. I think I taught more cohabitators and intimately involved single adults as a missionary than married individuals. Compared to all of this stuff, plural marriage is heavenly!

Of course, if you assume that plural marriage is a basically celestial condition, then all those disagreements, fears, hurts, intimacy, sins, personal revelations, etc., pretty much go away, do they not?

It seems that the arguments against plural marriage assume that humans will always have the same weaknesses that they have on earth now. This is manifestly not the case. Even terrestrial beings are just men made perfect. Celestial beings are perfect and do not have the faults, jealousies, lusts, desire for domination, fears, and other problems that we face on earth. There is no scarcity of resources in the celestial kingdom. There is no fear of death. We become infinite beings, with infinite capacity, no longer subject to corruption of any kind. What reason would there be to fear plural marriage in such an environment other than pure selfishness (and, by definition, the selfish will never enter the celestial kingdom)?

[Del March]

Agreed, Dad. I see Jacob as quite an example of what NOT to do in a plural marriage And yet, he is one of the blessed Patriarchs. Sure gives me hope

Edit: "I am a polygamist who does not polyg, while you sir are a monogamist who does not monog!"

And onelowerlight: thanks for sharing that story This is pretty much what I envision when I think of how plural marriage should be lived.

Del

[KevinG]

Agreed, Dad. I see Jacob as quite an example of what NOT to do in a plural marriage And yet, he is one of the blessed Patriarchs. Sure gives me hope

Del

...and hope to the rest of us scoundrels who have faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Jacob does seem to repent of his foolishness later in life, and embrace all of his sons despite their shennanigans. He sure learned the hard way though.

[Zakuska]

I also enjoyed Dels Remarks however... I'd like to explore this a little further...

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.

I'm not sure of the dynamics here. Would it not be in the intrest of the tripla to not have secrets amongst themselves? I guess it would all depend on how they defined their relationship.

I can see how a Bishop or Stake president might have to "keep secrets" of members in the ward from their spouse. But remember the Tripla is "one". I think this is why many of the early Brethern practiced it like they did with familes spead a part where they would not have to deal with such dynamics.

[liz3564]

I'm impressed, guys! We've actually been able to sustain a thread about polygamy that has been an intelligent discussion of ideas and managed to stay adult about it and not bash each other.

I knew it could be done!

Great comments on both sides of the issue. Like allanasaunt, it is way too late and my mind is way too fuzzy to attempt any intelligible commentary at this point, but I will check in on the thread tomorrow and be adding more comments.

Thanks, everyone! This is a great thread!

[Zakuska]

Agreed, Dad. I see Jacob as quite an example of what NOT to do in a plural marriage And yet, he is one of the blessed Patriarchs. Sure gives me hope

Edit: "I am a polygamist who does not polyg, while you sir are a monogamist who does not monog!"

And onelowerlight: thanks for sharing that story This is pretty much what I envision when I think of how plural marriage should be lived.

Del

Amen!

Jonahs a perfect example of how not to be prophet of God.

I think the Bible gives us more examples of how NOT to do things than it does for how TOO do things.

[KevinG]

I also enjoyed Dels Remarks however... I'd like to explore this a little further...

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.

I'm not sure of the dynamics here. Would it not be in the intrest of the tripla to not have secrets amongst themselves? I guess it would all depend on how they defined their relationship.

I can see how a Bishop or Stake president might have to "keep secrets" of members in the ward from their spouse. But remember the Tripla is "one". I think this is why many of the early Brethern practiced it like they did with familes spead a part where they would not have to deal with such dynamics.

Being imperfect and in the process of becoming one, there are times I can see keeping a confidence and encouraging someone to grow to the point of not needing the confidence would be of benefit. For example, if there were interpersonal issues that bothered one spouse and she was really trying to overcome them. It wouldn't serve to blab to the other and fan the flames.

Also intimacy is something I see that would always be very personal and private, not matter how aligned the family was. There are some things that were designed to be between a couple, no matter how expansive the whole family gets.