Polygamy makes me doubt God’s love

[Kenngo1969]

On 11/18/2021 at 8:06 PM, bluebell said:

A lot of women fear that they can't turn it down without losing their husbands, who they love very much.  Like if they die first and their husband gets remarried and sealed to his next wife, turning down polygamy in a situation like that becomes pretty messy.  

I know you're not saying this, Bluebell.  This is simply a general observation.  I don't think the Lord is sitting there saying to himself, "Oh, crap!  Brother Jones got sealed again!  I did not see that coming!"    (See Romans 8:28.)  

[Olmec Donald]

On 11/20/2021 at 11:21 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

(See Romans 8:28.)

"... all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."

Imo Romans 8:28 is deliberately and actively choosing the most positive perspective you possibly can under whatever circumstance, even if doing so makes no sense to anyone else and most of the time make no sense to you either.  One of the reason I respect you is that I think you agreed to experience the circumstances you are in, and you are choosing the Romans 8:28 perspective when such is not the path of least resistance.  Relative to the rest of us you are developing superpowers; it's like you spend virtually ALL of all your time at the dojo.  When you choose light over darkness you are blessing the world, in my opinion, though it may not be apparent to anyone from our current perspective.   

If you get Netflix, there's a show called "Manifest" that I really like.  It's about the passengers of Montegro Air Flight 828.  The flight number is an allusion to Romans 8:28.  There is no championing of any particular religion in the show, so it's very easy to watch regardless of one's background. 

 

[Kenngo1969]

1 minute ago, Olmec Donald said:

"... all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."

Imo Romans 8:28 is deliberately and actively choosing the most positive perspective you possibly can under whatever circumstance, even if doing so makes no sense to anyone else and most of the time make no sense to you either.  One of the reason I respect you is that I think you agreed to experience the circumstances you are in, and you are choosing the Romans 8:28 perspective when such is not the path of least resistance.  Relative to the rest of us you are developing superpowers; it's like you spend virtually ALL of all your time at the dojo.  When you choose light over darkness you are blessing the world, in my opinion, though it may not be apparent to anyone from our current perspective.   

If you get Netflix, there's a show called "Manifest" that I really like.  It's about the passengers of Montegro Air Flight 828.  The flight number is an allusion to Romans 8:28.  There is no championing of any particular religion in the show, so it's very easy to watch regardless of one's background. 

 

I appreciate the high praise, thank you very much.  Really, though, all any of us can do, given whatever circumstance in which we might find ourselves, is the best we can do.  I think most of us try to do that, and many of us do it in circumstances that would make even me blanch, even though I'm no stranger to certain kinds of adversity: A lot of us are "playing and winning the 'game' of life with the hand that we're dealt," as unfavorable as, in some ways, that hand may appear to be.

All The Best,

-Ken

[The Nehor]

On 11/19/2021 at 12:17 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

As regards my personal circumstances, it is beyond perverse to me that it seems that the world can find no particular use for me, occupationally speaking, except for answering phones (something that, although, depending on the circumstances, I could be quite good at, frankly, I've had my absolute fill of, and no longer wish to do [no matter how much I'm paid to do it]), and, instead, the response is, "Nope!  Sorry!  There's no way you ever could be useful in your 'would-be-chosen-profession,' so we're not going to help you find a job in it: But, good news!  The Government, now, has deemed you totally and permanently disabled, so, since we can't be bothered to help you bridge whatever gaps remain between your current state and your desired employment, now, we're going to forgive the remainder of the tens of thousands of dollars of student loans you incurred in an attempt to qualify yourself for that profession!  Congratulations!"

How you maintain the will to live with that kind of job is beyond my ability to understand. I mean that sincerely. I suspect I would have ‘cursed God and died’ long ago.

[mrmarklin]

On 11/18/2021 at 7:06 PM, bluebell said:

A lot of women fear that they can't turn it down without losing their husbands, who they love very much.  Like if they die first and their husband gets remarried and sealed to his next wife, turning down polygamy in a situation like that becomes pretty messy.  

I get what you are saying. But if a woman’s understanding is opened in the next estate about the sealing ordinance, she will likely embrace the way the Lord works.  She will be able to remember her premortal existence, and coupled with her experience on earth, she will understand God’s goals. 

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

I get what you are saying. But if a woman’s understanding is opened in the next estate about the sealing ordinance, she will likely embrace the way the Lord works.  She will be able to remember her premortal existence, and coupled with her experience on earth, she will understand God’s goals. 

I think you are probably right, but it doesn't sound any more appealing than if someone told you that in the next life you are going to be a homosexual sealed to a man, but don't worry about it because your eyes will be opened and you will understand.

You're answer is probably the only real answer if it all works the way we've been taught, but at the same time, it's also one of the worst answers you can give to someone who is struggling with it.

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think you are probably right, but it doesn't sound any more appealing than if someone told you that in the next life you are going to be a homosexual sealed to a man, but don't worry about it because your eyes will be opened and you will understand.

You're answer is probably the only real answer if it all works the way we've been taught, but at the same time, it's also one of the worst answers you can give to someone who is struggling with it.

Good one bluebell! 

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

I get what you are saying. But if a woman’s understanding is opened in the next estate about the sealing ordinance, she will likely embrace the way the Lord works.  She will be able to remember her premortal existence, and coupled with her experience on earth, she will understand God’s goals. 

Believing that it is going to all work out the way the woman or any man for that matter will want because she/he will understand the purpose of God and agree with it should be very reassuring to those who already believe this. I know it is to me.
 

But it seems rather irrelevant to me in addressing what a woman or man feels in the here and now, just as telling a young child that when they grow up they will appreciate that their parent made them go to school, do chores, brush their teeth, go to bed early, eat their veggies…does anyone think the child is going to change their mind about how they feel now?  
 

I can still remember how it felt wanting to throw up and trying so hard not to so Dad wouldn’t be mad, the cause being the taste of canned beans while I sat last at the dinner table forcing myself to eat so I could leave it. One of my more vivid memories of childhood. (I bet some of you are dreading my analogy by now, I have used it enough.) My dad telling me I would learn to like them just made me want heave up all of dinner, not out of rebellion, but hopelessness because nothing changed in that moment. I really hated those things and I feared every time Dad cooked for awhile until I knew he hadn’t cooked those for that night and it was creamed corn instead.  Sure, big difference anticipating between being forced to eat beans and being required to live as a sister wife, but feeling sick to your stomach is feeling sick to your stomach.

 

[Chum]

So if postmortal glory is a unified man/woman creating life sustaining planets, how does a polygamous grouping work? It it like a guy but with 6 women and what are they doing? Are the women creating colorful gas giants with tons of playful little moons arranged in Feng shui while the guy spends a billion years trying to restore some asteroid to the day it rolled off the assembly line?

Edited November 22, 2021 by Chum

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

How you maintain the will to live with that kind of job is beyond my ability to understand. I mean that sincerely. I suspect I would have ‘cursed God and died’ long ago.

To clarify, I'm not working now.  When I say I no longer wish to answer phones, the last company for which I did so long-term (between three and four years' duration, ending in early 2019) vacated the state.  When I was working for them, I said to myself, "Well, I don't want to answer phones, but if that's the only thing anyone thinks I'm good for so I must do it, I guess I'd rather do it here and nowhere else ..."  Because as seemingly-soul-crushing, boring, and repetitive as that particular job was, I was good at it.  I mean, I was really good at it.  And my employer, for all the limits that may have been placed on its ability to do so in any meaningful way, knew I was good at it and recognized  how good I was at it and (again, albeit within severe constraints) rewarded me for how good I was at it.  So, even if, in some ways, I wasn't very happy with that job, (and, while yours and anyone else's mileage may vary), I think there's a lot to be said for having a job one does well, even if that particular job is less than ideal (and even if it's far less than ideal) in other ways.

Then I got word that the company was vacating the state and not offering me the opportunity to transfer (which, to be honest, I probably wouldn't have taken anyway, even if they had).  Perversely, now, there is a limit to how much I can work (and/or, at least, to how much money I can make, if-and-when I do), since, for Social Security purposes, I am "disabled."  The perhaps-perverse state of affairs is, "As long as you don't work [or as long as you don't make too much money], we'll write off/forgive/insert-preferred-verb-here your loans, but if you do work [too much] ..."

I was in training for another company when COVID-19 hit, and they wanted to train us remotely ("To do what?" you ask.  "Why, to answer phones of course!"      "Why would you want to do that?"  Well, I wouldn't, but, if you can't beat 'em ...  )  which meant that I would have had to have trained remotely, which I didn't think, with my particular mental and emotional and intellectual* makeup, would have worked very well. *Yes, those are three absolutely loaded words; take them however you will.

A quarter of a century ago, now (!!!) , when I was only on my third or fourth job answering phones but was out ... yes, on disability, because, frankly, I was dealing with the same issue: Why is this the only thing anybody thinks I'm good for?  Can't they read a resume?  Have I really sucked that bad in all of the interviews I've had to try to get something else? ... a doctor offered to write a letter stating that the particular working environment I was in ... in a cubicle, tethered to a phone, eight hours a day, all workday, every workday ... was not conducive to maintaining my emotional health.  Like an idiot, I declined his offer ... and went back to work doing the same thing.  If I had it to do over again, I would have and let him write the letter.  Why in Hades was I so stubborn?  Why couldn't I have swallowed my pride?  How much grief might I have saved myself??? ... Well, if I had "known" (rather than simply "suspecting") that all anybody ever would think I'm good for is answering phones ... But, 20/20 hindsight.

Hell, I was so desperate to not answer phones, I was such a sadomasochist, I even went to law school ... And took a leave of absence from that ... and got a job during that leave of absence ... Doing what, you ask?  Why, answering phones, of course!  I still wasn't sure about law school (who is? ), but I knew I didn't want to answer phones for the rest of my life ... so I swallowed my fear, my pride, and my ambivalence, and went back.

Would I rather work?  If you tied me to an ant hill, smothered my ears with jam, and forced me to give you an answer, I'd tell you that, yeah: I'd rather work.  But if the only way I'm going to get out from under the Sword of Damocles that is my aggregate student loan debt is to not work, or to limit (severely) how much I do work, or to limit (severely) how much money I make when I work, so be it.

And if that makes me a lazy, copping-out, blah-blah-blah, S.O.B., again, so be it.  I volunteer quite a bit, but the catch is, that's a few hours a month or a few hours a quarter here and there.  Could I do more?  Yeah, but, again, it would have to be the right kind of thing, under the right circumstances, et cetera.  And, on top of that, my ability to drive (legally) has been circumscribed so severely that, for all intents and purposes, that particular privilege has been revoked.  (If you happen to see me in my hot rod, don't tell the cops. )

Okay.  That was a novel.  I'm not sure why I wrote it or who would want to read it, but there it is.

Edited November 22, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

  That was a novel.  I'm not sure why I wrote it or who would want to read it, but there it is.

You read mine all the time iirc (though maybe you only have given me points for short ones), I think it is fair I get the chance to read novels from you on occasion. 

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

To clarify, I'm not working now.  When I say I no longer wish to answer phones, the last company for which I did so long-term (between three and four years' duration, ending in early 2019) vacated the state.  When I was working for them, I said to myself, "Well, I don't want to answer phones, but if that's the only thing anyone thinks I'm good for so I must do it, I guess I'd rather do it here and nowhere else ..."  Because as seemingly-soul-crushing, boring, and repetitive as that particular job was, I was good at it.  I mean, I was really good at it.  And my employer, for all the limits that may have been placed on its ability to do so in any meaningful way, knew I was good at it and recognized  how good I was at it and (again, albeit within severe constraints) rewarded me for how good I was at it.  So, even if, in some ways, I wasn't very happy with that job, (and, while yours and anyone else's mileage may vary), I think there's a lot to be said for having a job one does well, even if that particular job is less than ideal (and even if it's far less than ideal) in other ways.

Then I got word that the company was vacating the state and not offering me the opportunity to transfer (which, to be honest, I probably wouldn't have taken anyway, even if they had).  Perversely, now, there is a limit to how much I can work (and/or, at least, to how much money I can make, if-and-when I do), since, for Social Security purposes, I am "disabled."  The perhaps-perverse state of affairs is, "As long as you don't work [or as long as you don't make too much money], we'll write off/forgive/insert-preferred-verb-here your loans, but if you do work [too much] ..."

I was in training for another company when COVID-19 hit, and they wanted to train us remotely ("To do what?" you ask.  "Why, to answer phones of course!"      "Why would you want to do that?"  Well, I wouldn't, but, if you can't beat 'em ...  )  which meant that I would have had to have trained remotely, which I didn't think, with my particular mental and emotional and intellectual* makeup, would have worked very well. *Yes, those are three absolutely loaded words; take them however you will.

A quarter of a century ago, now (!!!) , when I was only on my third or fourth job answering phones but was out ... yes, on disability, because, frankly, I was dealing with the same issue: Why is this the only thing anybody thinks I'm good for?  Can't they read a resume?  Have I really sucked that bad in all of the interviews I've had to try to get something else? ... a doctor offered to write a letter stating that the particular working environment I was in ... in a cubicle, tethered to a phone, eight hours a day, all workday, every workday ... was not conducive to maintaining my emotional health.  Like an idiot, I declined his offer ... and went back to work doing the same thing.  If I had it to do over again, I would have and let him write the letter.  Why in Hades was I so stubborn?  Why couldn't I have swallowed my pride?  How much grief might I have saved myself??? ... Well, if I had "known" (rather than simply "suspecting") that all anybody ever would think I'm good for is answering phones ... But, 20/20 hindsight.

Hell, I was so desperate to not answer phones, I was such a sadomasochist, I even went to law school ... And took a leave of absence from that ... and got a job during that leave of absence ... Doing what, you ask?  Why, answering phones, of course!  I still wasn't sure about law school (who is? ), but I knew I didn't want to answer phones for the rest of my life ... so I swallowed my fear, my pride, and my ambivalence, and went back.

Would I rather work?  If you tied me to an ant hill, smothered my ears with jam, and forced me to give you an answer, I'd tell you that, yeah: I'd rather work.  But if the only way I'm going to get out from under the Sword of Damocles that is my aggregate student loan debt is to not work, or to limit (severely) how much I do work, or to limit (severely) how much money I make when I work, so be it.

And if that makes me a lazy, copping-out, blah-blah-blah, S.O.B., again, so be it.  I volunteer quite a bit, but the catch is, that's a few hours a month or a few hours a quarter here and there.  Could I do more?  Yeah, but, again, it would have to be the right kind of thing, under the right circumstances, et cetera.  And, on top of that, my ability to drive (legally) has been circumscribed so severely that, for all intents and purposes, that particular privilege has been revoked.  (If you happen to see me in my hot rod, don't tell the cops. )

Okay.  That was a novel.  I'm not sure why I wrote it or who would want to read it, but there it is.

My husband and I's good friend use to work on the phone, and he was a grouch anytime we talked to him on the phone, lol! He hated it too. But you never know, Ken, you might just be able to affect a lot of people and cheer them up, or who knows, the possibilities are endless. 

I know right now, your not doing the phone bit, but there's a lot of possibilities I'm sure. Or you can continually humor and enlighten us here on the board. Hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving! 

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

... I know right now, your not doing the phone bit, but there's a lot of possibilities I'm sure. Or you can continually humor and enlighten us here on the board. Hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving! 

Likewise, My Dear.  Likewise.  All the Best to You and Yours.

-Ken

[Mark Beesley]

Is the primary objection people have to the doctrine of polygamy the sexual aspect of the marital relationship? If so, then a proper understanding of the role sex is intended to play in the relationship is crucial. Once we divorce biological love (lust) from spiritual love (charity), the prospect of “sharing” a spouse may become less distasteful. When we consider the words of the Lord, that His thoughts and ways are not the same as ours, we cannot even be certain that the procreation of spirit children occurs the same way as mortal children. I kind if doubt it.

A problem with polygamy in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is ultimately a problem of faith, trust and testimony.

[Mark Beesley]

10 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

To clarify, I'm not working now.  When I say I no longer wish to answer phones, the last company for which I did so long-term (between three and four years' duration, ending in early 2019) vacated the state.  When I was working for them, I said to myself, "Well, I don't want to answer phones, but if that's the only thing anyone thinks I'm good for so I must do it, I guess I'd rather do it here and nowhere else ..."  Because as seemingly-soul-crushing, boring, and repetitive as that particular job was, I was good at it.  I mean, I was really good at it.  And my employer, for all the limits that may have been placed on its ability to do so in any meaningful way, knew I was good at it and recognized  how good I was at it and (again, albeit within severe constraints) rewarded me for how good I was at it.  So, even if, in some ways, I wasn't very happy with that job, (and, while yours and anyone else's mileage may vary), I think there's a lot to be said for having a job one does well, even if that particular job is less than ideal (and even if it's far less than ideal) in other ways.

Then I got word that the company was vacating the state and not offering me the opportunity to transfer (which, to be honest, I probably wouldn't have taken anyway, even if they had).  Perversely, now, there is a limit to how much I can work (and/or, at least, to how much money I can make, if-and-when I do), since, for Social Security purposes, I am "disabled."  The perhaps-perverse state of affairs is, "As long as you don't work [or as long as you don't make too much money], we'll write off/forgive/insert-preferred-verb-here your loans, but if you do work [too much] ..."

I was in training for another company when COVID-19 hit, and they wanted to train us remotely ("To do what?" you ask.  "Why, to answer phones of course!"      "Why would you want to do that?"  Well, I wouldn't, but, if you can't beat 'em ...  )  which meant that I would have had to have trained remotely, which I didn't think, with my particular mental and emotional and intellectual* makeup, would have worked very well. *Yes, those are three absolutely loaded words; take them however you will.

A quarter of a century ago, now (!!!) , when I was only on my third or fourth job answering phones but was out ... yes, on disability, because, frankly, I was dealing with the same issue: Why is this the only thing anybody thinks I'm good for?  Can't they read a resume?  Have I really sucked that bad in all of the interviews I've had to try to get something else? ... a doctor offered to write a letter stating that the particular working environment I was in ... in a cubicle, tethered to a phone, eight hours a day, all workday, every workday ... was not conducive to maintaining my emotional health.  Like an idiot, I declined his offer ... and went back to work doing the same thing.  If I had it to do over again, I would have and let him write the letter.  Why in Hades was I so stubborn?  Why couldn't I have swallowed my pride?  How much grief might I have saved myself??? ... Well, if I had "known" (rather than simply "suspecting") that all anybody ever would think I'm good for is answering phones ... But, 20/20 hindsight.

Hell, I was so desperate to not answer phones, I was such a sadomasochist, I even went to law school ... And took a leave of absence from that ... and got a job during that leave of absence ... Doing what, you ask?  Why, answering phones, of course!  I still wasn't sure about law school (who is? ), but I knew I didn't want to answer phones for the rest of my life ... so I swallowed my fear, my pride, and my ambivalence, and went back.

Would I rather work?  If you tied me to an ant hill, smothered my ears with jam, and forced me to give you an answer, I'd tell you that, yeah: I'd rather work.  But if the only way I'm going to get out from under the Sword of Damocles that is my aggregate student loan debt is to not work, or to limit (severely) how much I do work, or to limit (severely) how much money I make when I work, so be it.

And if that makes me a lazy, copping-out, blah-blah-blah, S.O.B., again, so be it.  I volunteer quite a bit, but the catch is, that's a few hours a month or a few hours a quarter here and there.  Could I do more?  Yeah, but, again, it would have to be the right kind of thing, under the right circumstances, et cetera.  And, on top of that, my ability to drive (legally) has been circumscribed so severely that, for all intents and purposes, that particular privilege has been revoked.  (If you happen to see me in my hot rod, don't tell the cops. )

Okay.  That was a novel.  I'm not sure why I wrote it or who would want to read it, but there it is.

My wife went to law school and became a lawyer. Guess what she does. Answers phones! 😇 (She manages the intake for Legal Aid in San Diego.)

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

Is the primary objection people have to the doctrine of polygamy the sexual aspect of the marital relationship? If so, then a proper understanding of the role sex is intended to play in the relationship is crucial. Once we divorce biological love (lust) from spiritual love (charity), the prospect of “sharing” a spouse may become less distasteful. When we consider the words of the Lord, that His thoughts and ways are not the same as ours, we cannot even be certain that the procreation of spirit children occurs the same way as mortal children. I kind if doubt it.

A problem with polygamy in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is ultimately a problem of faith, trust and testimony.

If sex is not a part of the love that exists between husband and wife, then how will eternal marriage be any different than being eternally sealed to your brother or sister.  How will it be different than the love you will feel for your best friend of the same sex?

I don't think reducing eternal marriage to only feelings of charity (the same feelings you will have towards everyone in the celestial kingdom, your parents, etc.) is the answer to this problem.  

 

[Chum]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I even went to law school ... And took a leave of absence from that ... and got a job during that leave of absence ... Doing what, you ask?  Why, answering phones, of course! 

I worked for a law office for a couple of years. I prepared bankruptcies, probate & real estate docs. My title was receptionist (I've no legal background) so you can guess what else I did. That said, the paralegal answered phones too.

At a law office, you might get to do legal stuff and not exclusively answer phones.

[Mark Beesley]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If sex is not a part of the love that exists between husband and wife, then how will eternal marriage be any different than being eternally sealed to your brother or sister.  How will it be different than the love you will feel for your best friend of the same sex?

I don't think reducing eternal marriage to only feelings of charity (the same feelings you will have towards everyone in the celestial kingdom, your parents, etc.) is the answer to this problem.  

 

I don't know the answer to any of these questions.  I believe we have elevated sexual relations to a level it was never intended to occupy.  Relegating sex to its proper role does not reduce eternal marriage, rather it gives it an opportunity to flourish freed from the pressures of satisfying the biological urges.  (This was likely more readily accomplished when marriages were still arranged.) The love our Father in Heaven has for us is perfect love, and it exists without any sexual relationship between Him and us. Why then should our perfect love to our spouse be dependent on a biological construct?

I would never characterize charity as "only feelings," and I'm sure that is not what you intended. Charity swallows up everything, faith, hope, despair.  If one had "only feelings of charity" in its perfect endowment, well, as Mormon taught, it would be well with that person at the last day. See Moroni 7:47.

Edited November 22, 2021 by Mark Beesley

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

I don't know the answer to any of these questions.  I believe we have elevated sexual relations to a level it was never intended to occupy.  Relegating sex to its proper role does not reduce eternal marriage, rather it gives it an opportunity to flourish freed from the pressures of satisfying the biological urges.  (This was likely more readily accomplished when marriages were still arranged.) The love our Father in Heaven has for us is perfect love, and it exists without any sexual relationship between Him and us. Why then should our perfect love to our spouse be dependent on a biological construct?

I would never characterize charity as "only feelings," and I'm sure that is not what you intended. Charity swallows up everything, faith, hope, despair.  If one had "only feelings of charity" in its perfect endowment, well, as Mormon taught, it would be well with that person at the last day. See Moroni 7:47.

I would hope that the relationship that Heavenly Father has with Heavenly Mother is different than the relationship He has with me as His daughter.

An eternity of platonic love sounds like the Protestant version of Heaven. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

Is the primary objection people have to the doctrine of polygamy the sexual aspect of the marital relationship? If so, then a proper understanding of the role sex is intended to play in the relationship is crucial. Once we divorce biological love (lust) from spiritual love (charity), the prospect of “sharing” a spouse may become less distasteful. When we consider the words of the Lord, that His thoughts and ways are not the same as ours, we cannot even be certain that the procreation of spirit children occurs the same way as mortal children. I kind if doubt it.

A problem with polygamy in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is ultimately a problem of faith, trust and testimony.

Not in my experience. It is the devotion, companionship aspect. Sharing one’s life in terms not of time or resources, but in how they think about each other. 
 

The type of emotional support when I ask for help from my husband means something different to me than when I ask for it from my kids or siblings even if they might be doing the same thing, such as driving me to my doctor’s’ appointments…which are endless.  The connection and commitment are different, so when he reinforces those by sacrifices, giving of himself, the experience is very different for me than when it occurs with others.

They are giving to me space in their lives. He is giving to me his life. 

And it hurts so much more when it is withheld because I don’t.  So much harder to understand (no doubt he doesn’t understand when it appears like I am withholding).

The older I get the less I feel like sharing that.  It would shift the meaning of our relationship too much, the type of relationship I now need and would miss where I wouldn’t have when I didn’t know what marriage could be.  I have thought in the past that a sisterwife, if a very specific kind of person, would be actually nice to have around, being able to do the social activities my husband loves and I don’t and now can’t do. Someone who could help support my daughter where I can’t now. Someone to be a close friend to me.  Not thinking like that as much now. Housekeeper for the physical needs and grandkids for the social is now more of a solution. 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Chum said:

I worked for a law office for a couple of years. I prepared bankruptcies, probate & real estate docs. My title was receptionist (I've no legal background) so you can guess what else I did. That said, the paralegal answered phones too.

At a law office, you might get to do legal stuff and not exclusively answer phones.

Funny thing: That's the sort of job that brought me to the area where I've lived for about the last 6 1/2 years: Answering phones for a major disability law firm.  (It was still answering phones all workday, every workday, but I thought, "Hey, at least it's a law firm, so that's progress ...")  I know this is going to sound like I'm continuing to do nothing but make excuses and blame others for what has happened to me, but, honestly, I was saddled with The Boss From Hell: in her eyes, I could do absolutely nothing right, so I did what I've done far, far too often in my life: I quit without having anything else lined up (the difference being that in this case, I'm pretty sure I quit not too long before I would have been shoved out the door, anyway ...   )

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

My wife went to law school and became a lawyer. Guess what she does. Answers phones! 😇 (She manages the intake for Legal Aid in San Diego.)

Oh, wow.  Best to her.  As much antipathy as I have developed for being on the phone all day, every day, perhaps that's the sort of thing even I wouldn't mind.

Edited November 22, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[strappinglad]

If you think answering phones all day is rough, quickly scroll to 10: 50 to see other choices . Don't look at the rest of the video, Ethyl

Edited November 22, 2021 by strappinglad

[Olmec Donald]

6 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

Is the primary objection people have to the doctrine of polygamy the sexual aspect of the marital relationship?

I would never ask anyone to accept a marital situation that crushes their spirit, in this life or the next.

Nor do I think men have some special ability to love multiple companions that women do not have. 

How would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot?  Suppose polyandry rather than polygyny was the law.  Would you be happy sharing your wife with BYU's offensive line?

Seriously, can you honestly say that you would have a fullness of joy if you were in the exact same situation that polygyny puts your wife in?  If not, then why would you be okay with her being put in that situation?  Or, despite your defense of polygyny, ARE you really okay with it, totally at peace with it, deep down inside?

Personally, I don't think we have the complete picture yet. 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

I would never ask anyone to accept a marital situation that crushes their spirit, in this life or the next. ...

Nor do I believe anyone would.  As I've said so many times before, whatever our situation in the hereafter ends up being, I don't think for a moment that the All Knowing, All Powerful, All Loving Lord of the Universe will have to tell any of us, if we're faithful, "I know you were expecting something more, or something better, or at least something different once you got to the afterlife, and I know that this means that it sucks to be you, but ... sorry; this is the best I could do."    

2 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

Personally, I don't think we have the complete picture yet. 

I know that what you might wish to imply in using that phrase, likely, is far different than what I take from it, and that's completely OK, but, absolutely, I agree with that ... 100%.  We have such a finite, blinkered, limited perspective on what our potential is, what we will be capable of, what our completely charitable relationships will be like, and so on, in the hereafter than we do now.

And, while I realize that polygyny wasn't all biscuits and gravy for everyone who practiced it, I do think it behooves us to try to understand why it is that so many of the Restoration Saints were so challenged by the second part of the polygyny transition ... being forced to give it up ... just as they were (if for much different reasons) by the first part of that transition ... being asked to adopt it.

P.S.: [Sorry; I meant to add this to this post, but, somehow, it ended up in a double-post]  And, while I realize that polygyny wasn't all biscuits and gravy for everyone who practiced it, I do think it behooves us to try to understand why it is that so many of the Restoration Saints were so challenged by the second part of the polygyny transition ... being forced to give it up ... just as they were (if for much different reasons) by the first part of that transition ... being asked to adopt it.

Edited November 22, 2021 by Kenngo1969