cdowis Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) Polygamy for this mortal life is forbidden. Just try to get sealed to a second wife in the temple and alarm bells and klaxons will sound. You have to be either divorced or a widower. But what about a "sister -- wife" arrangement? I know at least a couple of active, married (wife still living) LDS men who have made such an informal agreement with an older single sister, I have been advised that it is rather tricky to make such an arrangement. For example, one bishop, when he happened to find out, well, his head almost exploded and almost refused to renew the temple recommend, while another one was rather understanding and just shrugged his shoulders as long as they did nothing "out of bounds", so to speak. The obvious questions, but let's assume there is no physical intimacy between them and they are generally circumspect about their relationship. Is this fundamentally wrong? Edited January 9, 2017 by cdowis
JLHPROF Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, cdowis said: Polygamy for this mortal life is forbidden. Just try to get sealed to a second wife in the temple and alarm bells and klaxons will sound. You have to be either divorced or a widower. But what about a "sister -- wife" arrangement? I know at least a couple of active, married (wife still living) LDS men who have made such an informal agreement with an older single sister, I have been advised that it is rather tricky to make such an arrangement. For example, one bishop, when he happened to find out, well, his head almost exploded and almost refused to renew the temple recommend, while another one was rather understanding and just shrugged his shoulders as long as they did nothing "out of bounds", so to speak. The obvious questions, but let's assume there is no physical intimacy between them and they are generally circumspect about their relationship. Is this fundamentally wrong? The temple marriage covenant needs to be reviewed by people on both sides of this situation. Such an informal covenant is of no binding effect unless sealed by correct authority. Denying a recommend for such a meaningless promise seems pointless as well. I thought even those who believe polygamy has been revoked agreed with Brigham that we can still be "polygamists in our faith", or in other words, accept whatever God's will is for the future.
cdowis Posted January 9, 2017 Author Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: The temple marriage covenant needs to be reviewed by people on both sides of this situation. Such an informal covenant is of no binding effect unless sealed by correct authority. Denying a recommend for such a meaningless promise seems pointless as well. Just curious. Do you regard an engagement prior toa temple marriage as "meaningless"? I thought even those who believe polygamy has been revoked agreed with Brigham that we can still be "polygamists in our faith", or in other words, accept whatever God's will is for the future. OK. And such an arrangement is obviously "for the future". Other than it is meaningless, and "in the future", you have no objection. Edited January 9, 2017 by cdowis
cdowis Posted January 9, 2017 Author Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) Please note, I am not advocating this arrangement. Only have observed it very rarely and never seen anything written up about this anywhere. Has anyone else seen this, what problems do you foresee, etc. Edited January 9, 2017 by cdowis
Jane_Doe Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 I have never heard of this "sister wife" arrangement before, but the whole thing seems very apostate. People need to review covenants and OF1.
smac97 Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 14 minutes ago, cdowis said: The temple marriage covenant needs to be reviewed by people on both sides of this situation. Such an informal covenant is of no binding effect unless sealed by correct authority. Denying a recommend for such a meaningless promise seems pointless as well. Just curious. Do you regard an engagement prior to a temple marriage as "meaningless"? If by "meaningless" you mean "having no force or effect after death," then yes. See, e.g., D&C 132:15 ("Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world."); D&C 132:7 ("And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."); D&C 132:18 ("And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God."). If a legal and lawful marriage has no effect in the hereafter, then I don't see how a mere "engagement prior to a temple marriage" could have any force or effect. Quote I thought even those who believe polygamy has been revoked agreed with Brigham that we can still be "polygamists in our faith", or in other words, accept whatever God's will is for the future. OK. And such an arrangement is obviously "for the future". Other than it is meaningless, and "in the future", you have no objection. Could you clarify the nature of this "arrangement"? Here is what you said: Quote But what about a "sister -- wife" arrangement? I know at least a couple of active, married (wife still living) LDS men who have made such an informal agreement with an older single sister, I have been advised that it is rather tricky to make such an arrangement What are you talking about here? Are you referencing some sort of wife-giving-permission-to-husband-for-him-to-remarry-after-wife-dies kind of thing? Or are you speaking of some sort of arrangement wherein the husband is "married" to multiple living women at the same time? Thanks, -Smac 1
cdowis Posted January 9, 2017 Author Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, smac97 said: What are you talking about here? Are you referencing some sort of wife-giving-permission-to-husband-for-him-to-remarry-after-wife-dies kind of thing? Or are you speaking of some sort of arrangement wherein the husband is "married" to multiple living women at the same time? Somewhat of the latter, except that it is an understanding, an informal agreement. There may be many reasons to form this agreement, but inappropriate to discuss them here. I do not want to appear as an advocate. FWIW, I have a MS in Family Relations. Edited January 9, 2017 by cdowis
cdowis Posted January 9, 2017 Author Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) del Edited January 9, 2017 by cdowis
katherine the great Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 1 hour ago, cdowis said: The obvious questions, but let's assume there is no physical intimacy between them and they are generally circumspect about their relationship. Is this fundamentally wrong? Yes. Just my opinion.
Duncan Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) Don't any of you watch the Cosby Show?! by george! Edited January 9, 2017 by Duncan
cdowis Posted January 9, 2017 Author Posted January 9, 2017 8 minutes ago, katherine the great said: Yes. Just my opinion. Is polygamy itself immoral,or are you just talking about this arrangement.
readstoomuch Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 It is a little off, but I suppose if no hanky pinky happened and there was some type of agreement that could be proven, why not. I don`t know. How many angels dance on a pinhead? I do think that polygamy would be a social answer for the ongoing problem that there seems to be more single eligible women then men in the Church. My unofficial survey as I go about my business. It served that purpose in Manti in the mid 1800s. I think Kathryn Daines (Danes?) work on that was wonderful. Do I want that, support that or in any way think that is the absolute best-no. If we are going to have ssm I don`t know how polygyny or polyandry can be considered illegal. I always have a different take on this. I am sealed to two women, as my first wife died of cancer. My second wife had a problem with that for a few year, but really is peaceful and much more settled with the idea of polygamy. I also spent quite a bit of time studying the people who lived in polygamy and found them to be amazing individuals. They lived it because it was God`s law at the time. Probably to raise up a core of righteous saints. I had no idea until about a year ago that I was descended from polygamists and my ancestors were on one of the last wagon trains to cross the plains. My dad is a convert and I never thought of myself as pioneer stock or was here because of polygamy. Then I was going through genealogy that had already been done, but was trying to get to know my mom`s family and bingo. So, I just try to own it. When I teach lessons, I usually bring it up, hopefully in a faith promoting way.
katherine the great Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 6 minutes ago, cdowis said: Is polygamy itself immoral,or are you just talking about this arrangement. I'm an anthropologist and I view the morality of marriage systems as strictly cultural. I'm from a monogamous culture and arranging a polygamous union for the afterlife seems wrong to me. That being said, I could see myself joking about such a sister wife (or brother husband) arrangement. 1
Calm Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, cdowis said: Polygamy for this mortal life is forbidden. Just try to get sealed to a second wife in the temple and alarm bells and klaxons will sound. You have to be either divorced or a widower. But what about a "sister -- wife" arrangement? I know at least a couple of active, married (wife still living) LDS men who have made such an informal agreement with an older single sister, I have been advised that it is rather tricky to make such an arrangement. For example, one bishop, when he happened to find out, well, his head almost exploded and almost refused to renew the temple recommend, while another one was rather understanding and just shrugged his shoulders as long as they did nothing "out of bounds", so to speak. The obvious questions, but let's assume there is no physical intimacy between them and they are generally circumspect about their relationship. Is this fundamentally wrong? Is the current wife in full agreement about it? It comes across as a man and woman fantasizing about a relationship outside of the oneheis currently covenanted in. Comes very close to adultery and may or may not be saved by the current's wife full participation. Edited January 9, 2017 by Calm 2
cdowis Posted January 9, 2017 Author Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Calm said: Is the current wife in full agreement about it? This is rather a difficult question and don't have enough information to give a definitive answer. Let me speak in general for both couples. The wife will notice the time and attention that he gives the friend. She seems aware and accepts the fact that, for him, polygamy will be a part of their future in the next life. If she "tolerates" his behaviour, that implies some sort of consent. Edited January 9, 2017 by cdowis
Bernard Gui Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 In my old Central American Mission, some of our missionaries served the Cuna Indians who lived in the San Blas Islands off the Pacific coast of Panama. The only way to get to the islands was by small boat...canoe, rowboat, or motor boat. One question that was frequently asked was, "If the boat tips over or if an elder were to fall overboard, would he be breaking mission rules to swim?" Or, "Is bobbing against the rules?" On one occasion an elder accidentally "fell" in. As he surfaced his companion yelled, "Don't stroke, elder!" 1
The Nehor Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 Weird but whatever. I will worry about it when it is me.
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 I'd be happy with even just 1 eternal companion.
Calm Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 2 hours ago, cdowis said: This is rather a difficult question and don't have enough information to give a definitive answer. Let me speak in general for both couples. The wife will notice the time and attention that he gives the friend. She seems aware and accepts the fact that, for him, polygamy will be a part of their future in the next life. If she "tolerates" his behaviour, that implies some sort of consent. All I know is the one guy I knew who approached other (both married and single) women than his wife in this fashion ended up having an affair with some of them and almost destroyed one's family (thankfully her husband and she were able to forgive each other the mistakes that got them there). He still would drop off gifts for his 'future wife' last I heard even though she can't stand him now because of his cowardly dishonesty leaving her to face the blame, etc on her own. His current wife ended up despising her once friend, blaming her, not him, and did her best to make her feel unwelcomed at church though she was the one who turned her back on the affair and confessed since he saw nothing wrong in what they were doing, just s little early on the plural marriage enactment. Any couple who is working on living a commandment that they think might be restored, but is for sure forbidden in the here and now will be called to repentance, not to live it in my belief. 2
bcuzbcuz Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 5 hours ago, cdowis said: This is rather a difficult question and don't have enough information to give a definitive answer. Let me speak in general for both couples. The wife will notice the time and attention that he gives the friend. She seems aware and accepts the fact that, for him, polygamy will be a part of their future in the next life. If she "tolerates" his behaviour, that implies some sort of consent. "She seems aware" "If she 'tolerates' his behaviour, that implies some sort of consent." Wow! You're really opening a can of worms here. "Oh", he pleads, with tears in his eyes, "I thought you knew I was secretly thinking of your sister." You're implying that this man (with the possible engagement of his wife in the agreement) has made an arrangement with the (unmarried) sister to his wife, that, come the afterlife, he will take this sister-in-law into his holy marriage? I would love to be a fly on the wall during the conversation when that husband breaks the news to his wife, "Well, Dear, we no longer need to worry about your unmarried sister. I have had conversations with her and she has agreed to be my second wife in the next world. Isn't that great?" "Oh, and don't worry," he says as some tension slips into his voice and he begins speaking more rapidly, "During those conversations I have never inappropriately touched her in any way." "And she has never touched me in an inappropriate way." "You don't look happy. What's wrong?" 1
CV75 Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 8 hours ago, cdowis said: Polygamy for this mortal life is forbidden. Just try to get sealed to a second wife in the temple and alarm bells and klaxons will sound. You have to be either divorced or a widower. But what about a "sister -- wife" arrangement? I know at least a couple of active, married (wife still living) LDS men who have made such an informal agreement with an older single sister, I have been advised that it is rather tricky to make such an arrangement. For example, one bishop, when he happened to find out, well, his head almost exploded and almost refused to renew the temple recommend, while another one was rather understanding and just shrugged his shoulders as long as they did nothing "out of bounds", so to speak. The obvious questions, but let's assume there is no physical intimacy between them and they are generally circumspect about their relationship. Is this fundamentally wrong? Two words from this month's Ensign: emotional infidelity. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/01/marriage-technology-and-emotional-infidelity?lang=eng 2
Meadowchik Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 6 hours ago, cdowis said: This is rather a difficult question and don't have enough information to give a definitive answer. Let me speak in general for both couples. The wife will notice the time and attention that he gives the friend. She seems aware and accepts the fact that, for him, polygamy will be a part of their future in the next life. If she "tolerates" his behaviour, that implies some sort of consent. Ew. 3
Rain Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Calm said: All I know is the one guy I knew who approached other (both married and single) women than his wife in this fashion ended up having an affair with some of them and almost destroyed one's family (thankfully her husband and she were able to forgive each other the mistakes that got them there). He still would drop off gifts for his 'future wife' last I heard even though she can't stand him now because of his cowardly dishonesty leaving her to face the blame, etc on her own. His current wife ended up despising her once friend, blaming her, not him, and did her best to make her feel unwelcomed at church though she was the one who turned her back on the affair and confessed since he saw nothing wrong in what they were doing, just s little early on the plural marriage enactment. Any couple who is working on living a commandment that they think might be restored, but is for sure forbidden in the here and now will be called to repentance, not to live it in my belief. This reminds me of Elder Cook's talk: "The prophet Jacob referred to ancient Jews as “a stiffnecked people [who] despised … plainness, … killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall.” While there are many examples of looking beyond the mark, a significant one in our day is extremism. Gospel extremism is when one elevates any gospel principle above other equally important principles and takes a position that is beyond or contrary to the teachings of Church leaders. " Edited January 9, 2017 by Rain Added link 4
rodheadlee Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: In my old Central American Mission, some of our missionaries served the Cuna Indians who lived in the San Blas Islands off the Pacific coast of Panama. The only way to get to the islands was by small boat...canoe, rowboat, or motor boat. One question that was frequently asked was, "If the boat tips over or if an elder were to fall overboard, would he be breaking mission rules to swim?" Or, "Is bobbing against the rules?" On one occasion an elder accidentally "fell" in. As he surfaced his companion yelled, "Don't stroke, elder!" Where did you leave the mainland to reach the islands?
Recommended Posts