Isaiah, the Lord's order of marriage, and 45% of women ages 25–44 will be single by 2030 per Morgan Stanley.

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

When talking about the affordability of having children in this world today, pointing out that there are many places in the United States where young couples manage to have children, good housing, and still have good lives is relevant.  It doesn’t have to be all gloom and doom all the time.  Hope it is a part of having faith. 

But let's be realistic also. Someone is going to win the Powerball - maybe tonight, maybe Monday, maybe later. They will have a share in more than a billion dollars. But the reality is that nearly everyone who ever plays Powerball isn't going to will a billion dollars. No one is going to argue with the fact that there are young couples who buck the trends. But let's recognize what those trends are in a realistic way. Young couples who have children, who find good housing, and live good lives is not the direction this trend is going right now. Real data shows that young marriages are much more likely to end in divorce - marriage delay sharply reduces the risk of divorce. Having children early in life creates extra burdens that can destabilize marriages.

In the end, if our goal is to create stable marriages and increase birthrates in those stable marriages, we have choices. We can continue the trend of allowing people to wait until they have the stability and then get married (and maybe have children) or we can take steps to increase the likelihood of stability earlier and so make marriages work better at a younger age. This second choice will require us to make investments as a society. The first choice, not so much. But let's also not pretend that these factors aren't real and problematic for most of our young people today - that if they can't make it work, then they must be doing something wrong. That's a harmful false narrative.

[Calm]

Do we have data on how many families live in rental properties over the decades tied to location, by chance?

I think living close to universities in several places where I would see kids playing outside of apartments and in wards that had subsidized housing has made it appear to me that renting is not seen as a major obstacle to starting a family.  I would like to see how wrong I am on that, lol

Edited April 6, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But let's be realistic also. Someone is going to win the Powerball - maybe tonight, maybe Monday, maybe later. They will have a share in more than a billion dollars. But the reality is that nearly everyone who ever plays Powerball isn't going to will a billion dollars. No one is going to argue with the fact that there are young couples who buck the trends. But let's recognize what those trends are in a realistic way. Young couples who have children, who find good housing, and live good lives is not the direction this trend is going right now. Real data shows that young marriages are much more likely to end in divorce - marriage delay sharply reduces the risk of divorce. Having children early in life creates extra burdens that can destabilize marriages.

In the end, if our goal is to create stable marriages and increase birthrates in those stable marriages, we have choices. We can continue the trend of allowing people to wait until they have the stability and then get married (and maybe have children) or we can take steps to increase the likelihood of stability earlier and so make marriages work better at a younger age. This second choice will require us to make investments as a society. The first choice, not so much. But let's also not pretend that these factors aren't real and problematic for most of our young people today - that if they can't make it work, then they must be doing something wrong. That's a harmful false narrative.

My entire point in my conversation with Nehor was that not being able to buy a house doesn't automatically mean it is irresponsible to have a child.  

What part of my point do you disagree with?

[Benjamin McGuire]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My entire point in my conversation with Nehor was that not being able to buy a house doesn't automatically mean it is irresponsible to have a child.  

What part of my point do you disagree with?

There is nothing wrong with your statement - but your statement doesn't mean a lot - because you so heavily qualify it.

Not being able to ... doesn't automatically mean ...

That sort of statement applies to almost anything. The challenge is that your statement doesn't recognize what its own limitations are. I could make another statement that doesn't conflict with your own:

Not being able to buy a house means that there is a significant chance that it is irresponsible to have a child.

Would you disagree with that statement?

The problem isn't your statement, it is the implied leap that suggests that just because 'not being able to buy a house doesn't automatically mean it is irresponsible to have a child' should lead us to believe that we should have children even if we can't afford to buy that house (i.e. to have an appropriate environment in which to raise children). In fact, the data we have suggests that financial instability - like not being able to afford an appropriate living space for family and children - should be a big indicator in today's society that a couple should wait. Those that don't have a much higher risk of raising children in poverty, and having failed marriages.

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is nothing wrong with your statement - but your statement doesn't mean a lot - because you so heavily qualify it.

Not being able to ... doesn't automatically mean ...

That sort of statement applies to almost anything. The challenge is that your statement doesn't recognize what its own limitations are. I could make another statement that doesn't conflict with your own:

Not being able to buy a house means that there is a significant chance that it is irresponsible to have a child.

Would you disagree with that statement?

The problem isn't your statement, it is the implied leap that suggests that just because 'not being able to buy a house doesn't automatically mean it is irresponsible to have a child' should lead us to believe that we should have children even if we can't afford to buy that house (i.e. to have an appropriate environment in which to raise children). In fact, the data we have suggests that financial instability - like not being able to afford an appropriate living space for family and children - should be a big indicator in today's society that a couple should wait. Those that don't have a much higher risk of raising children in poverty, and having failed marriages.

My statement was specifically in response to Nehor's unqualified statement, so I kept it simple on purpose to match the level of discussion that was taking place:  meaning that it was simple because it was meant to mean as much as Nehor's did.  He was staying on the tip of the iceberg in his posts and so it made sense to me to do the same with mine.  

Have you read my first reply to him?

[Benjamin McGuire]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Have you read my first reply to him?

Yes.

[carbon dioxide]

On 4/4/2024 at 5:42 PM, MustardSeed said:

If variety is the appeal, then I get that.  Lots of people choose variety but don’t tie any knots to get it.    Monogamy is a grind for lots of people. 

Most people today have a problem with a polygamy because they live in a westernized view of things and polygamy is seen as bad.  I see nothing wrong with polygamy from a scriptural standpoint or if people want to do it for their personal lives. The government should not be involved in what people decide to do in their own lives.   Hugh Hefner had no legal problems living with more than one girlfriend.   Society generally ignored it as well.  I suppose he would have gotten more negative reaction if he decided to marry those girls he lived with.  It is weird to me.   I would never want to live in polygamy.  Monogamy is hard enough.  In fact I am a one and done guy.   I have a wife and that is it.  If she was to die tomorrow or we go divorced in a year, I am not doing the dating thing again.   I will live the rest of my life being single and place my priority on my kids and work to get that Ferrari or Lamborghini that I always wanted.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Yes.

In that post I qualified my statement in my statement to Nehor, explained exactly how I was applying it, and also noted the limitations.  I wasn't sure you had read it since those were three issues you said made my statement meaningless.

Knowing that you've read it, I'm even more confused about what issue you take with my original point.  

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Hugh Hefner had no legal problems living with more than one girlfriend.   Society generally ignored it as well.  I suppose he would have gotten more negative reaction if he decided to marry those girls he lived with.  It is weird to me.   

Society celebrated it.  They made those girls famous.  They marketed the lifestyle to teenage girls openly. They ignored any possible red flags. The show made millions and launched Playboy into its second era of fame and power.  And now we know that insidious abuses were happening behind the mansion's closed doors perpetrated by Hefner, a media darling lauded for his liberal views towards women.

I'm with you.  I'm no fan of polygamy and it should never be practiced via coercion or used to subjugate or abuse anyone, but society's pearl clutching over it is pretty shallow.

 

[The Nehor]

49 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Most people today have a problem with a polygamy because they live in a westernized view of things and polygamy is seen as bad.  I see nothing wrong with polygamy from a scriptural standpoint or if people want to do it for their personal lives. The government should not be involved in what people decide to do in their own lives.   Hugh Hefner had no legal problems living with more than one girlfriend.   Society generally ignored it as well.  I suppose he would have gotten more negative reaction if he decided to marry those girls he lived with.  It is weird to me.   I would never want to live in polygamy.  Monogamy is hard enough.  In fact I am a one and done guy.   I have a wife and that is it.  If she was to die tomorrow or we go divorced in a year, I am not doing the dating thing again.   I will live the rest of my life being single and place my priority on my kids and work to get that Ferrari or Lamborghini that I always wanted.

I’ll help as to why it was okay for Hefner. He was rich and we tolerate these kinds of things.

I mean Trump has spent his whole life trying to live a Hefneresque lifestyle and I have watched people who argue that sexual immorality is one of the worst things possible praise him. Money covereth a multitude of sins.

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

In that post I qualified my statement in my statement to Nehor, explained exactly how I was applying it, and also noted the limitations.  I wasn't sure you had read it since those were three issues you said made my statement meaningless.

Knowing that you've read it, I'm even more confused about what issue you take with my original point.  

The problem is that @The Nehor'scomments about fiscal concerns are something that is both widespread and reasonably well studied. You might look here, or here, or here. And that's just the tip of your iceberg. Anecdotal evidence about housing availability in Utah doesn't actually answer the issue that he raised - it is a deflection of it. And your response about being able to find cheap housing doesn't (as you suggest) begin to really dig into the financial difficulties that young people can face. This is my issue. A lot of this isn't just about what people can do financially but it is also about their perception of what they can do and what they believe is that necessary standard.

Pointing this out, as you do, is a way of trying to re-frame the problems that I was bringing up earlier (and the issues to which @The Nehor was interacting with when you first responded to him).

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The problem is that @The Nehor'scomments about fiscal concerns are something that is both widespread and reasonably well studied. You might look here, or here, or here. And that's just the tip of your iceberg. Anecdotal evidence about housing availability in Utah doesn't actually answer the issue that he raised - it is a deflection of it. And your response about being able to find cheap housing doesn't (as you suggest) begin to really dig into the financial difficulties that young people can face. This is my issue. A lot of this isn't just about what people can do financially but it is also about their perception of what they can do and what they believe is that necessary standard.

Pointing this out, as you do, is a way of trying to re-frame the problems that I was bringing up earlier (and the issues to which @The Nehor was interacting with when you first responded to him).

You seem very determined to make this discussion into something different than I was having while ignoring half of what I said and mind reading my intentions for the other half.

I’m going to peace out of that kind of conversation.  There’s nothing to be gained by continuing.  Have a good conference weekend. 

[Bernard Gui]

From one who was in the trenches.

https://jod.mrm.org/9/31  Plural Marriage

I will now speak a little in regard to people's making themselves happy. We heard something upon that subject today and yesterday; and we frequently hear people preaching about heaven, paradise, and Zion; and if there is a comfort, a felicity, and good feeling, I want to say a few words about them; and I shall begin upon the doctrine so much beloved by Saint and sinner, and that is the plurality of women. The Saints like a plurality of wives, and the sinners like a plurality of men and women. I will say to the sisters that I have heard but very few women, and not a great many men, ever talk sensibly upon the plurality of wives. When they begin to talk about it, they exhibit, almost without an exception, passion instead of principle. Were we to appeal to passions of the people, we should promote the doctrine of a plurality of men and of women. But when we address ourselves to the Saints of the Most High God, it is very different and in a different light. It is for my sisters to be mothers of holy men and holy women—to receive and conceive in the name and by the power of the Holy Ghost—to bring forth their fruits to the praise and honor of the God of heaven. But what are the people doing here? “I want another wife,” and almost universally passion is exhibited instead of principle.

If the plurality of wives is to pander to the low passions of men and women, the sooner it is abolished the better. “How far would you go in abolishing it?” I would say, if the Lord should reveal that it is his will to go so far as to become a Shaking Quaker, Amen to it, and let the sexes have no connection. If so far as for a man to have but one wife, let it be so. The word and will of the Lord is what I want—the will and mind of God. He has revealed his mind and will. The time is coming when the Lord is going to raise up a holy nation. He will bring up a royal Priesthood upon the earth, and he has introduced a plurality of wives for that express purpose, and not to gratify lustful passion in the least. I would rather take my valise in my hand today, and never see a wife or a child again, and preach the Gospel until I go into the grave, than to live as I do, unless God commands it. I never entered into the order of plurality of wives to gratify passion. And were I now asked whether I desired and wanted another wife, my reply would be, It should be one by whom the Spirit will bring forth noble children. I am almost sixty years old; and if I now live for passion, I pray the Lord Almighty to take my life from the earth.

I know the weaknesses of humanity, and I understand the passions of men and women. I am sorry for them. I wish they had grace according to their day, creating such fortitude in them that they would determine to suffer unto death rather than violate a holy command of the Almighty, or transgress the bounds God has set. “Is that the way you have lived?” It is. It is the example I have set before my family from the day the Lord opened my mind to see the Gospel. Ask these sisters (many of them have known me for years), what my life has been in private and in public. It has been like the angel Gabriel's, if he had visited you; and I can live so still. But how are we to be made happy? There is one course—love the Giver more than the gift; love Him that has placed

37

passion in me more than my passions. Let passion lie at the feet of judgment, and let every attribute that God has bestowed on me be devoted to the righteous cause he has commenced upon the earth. This, and this alone, produces happiness. He has brought us forth, and we live and see this day that Prophets, kings, and millions of great and good men have prayed to see, but died without the sight. When they looked at it in vision, it cast a halo, around which was like the dawning of heaven to their souls, and they shouted, “Hallelujah!” beholding the spirit and glory of these times that we now live in. And we yield to passion? I say, Shame on the individual that says passion has anything to do with his life. It is crucified. It lies, as it were, at the foot of the cross. That is my faith, and it has been my life.

How will you be happy? Love the Giver more than the gift. Delight yourselves in your duties, mothers. Here are the middle-aged and the young. I am now almost daily sealing young girls to men of age and experience. Love your duties, sisters. Are you sealed to a good man? Yes, to a man of God. It is for you to bear fruit and bring forth, to the praise of God, the spirits that are born in yonder heavens and are to take tabernacles on the earth. You have the privilege of forming tabernacles for those spirits, instead of their being brought into this wicked world, that God may have a royal Priesthood, a royal people, on the earth. That is what plurality of wives is for, and not to gratify lustful desires. Sisters, do you wish to make yourselves happy? Then what is your duty? It is for you to bear children, in the name of the Lord, that are full of faith and the power of God—to receive, conceive, bear, and bring forth in the name of Israel's God, that you may have the honor of being the mothers of great and good men—of kings, princes, and potentates that shall yet live on the earth and govern and control the nations. Do you look forward to that? Or are you tormenting yourselves by thinking that your husbands do not love you? I would not care whether they loved a particle or not; but I would cry out, like one of old, in the joy of my heart, “I have got a man from the Lord!” “Hallelujah! I am a mother—I have borne an image of God!” Let your prayers ascend to God, and that continually, that he will overshadow the child by the power of the Holy Ghost before and after its birth—that the Holy Ghost may attend it continually. The mother should inquire what her duty is. It is to teach her children holiness, prayer to God, and to trust in Him. Teach them the holy religion and the commandments that are calculated to sanctify the people and bring them into the presence of our Father and God. But no; too often it is passion. If my passion is served, I am in heaven. The fire will have to burn them up. We must live by principle; and if we do, we shall attain to perfection—to being crowned with crowns of glory, immortality, and eternal lives. I would rather be purified here than to live ten thousand years to attain the same point in another existence. The man that enters into this order by the prompting of passion, and not with a view to honor God and carry out his purposes, the curse of God will rest upon him, and that which he seems to have will be taken from him and given to those that act according to principle. Remember it.

The world cries out against this obnoxious doctrine, that I should have more wives than one. And what would they do? Destroy the virtue of every woman in this community if they had the power. What do

38

they care about virtue? With comparatively few exceptions, no more than do the devils in hell. Most of the officers who have been sent here would have defiled every bed in this Territory, had they have had the power. Tell about this doctrine's being obnoxious to their delicate feelings! Yes, it is, in one sense. It keeps them at bay; it is hell to them; it is burning them up; and I say they may burn up, and they will.

Elders of Israel, have you entered into the doctrine that has been revealed, through passion? If you have, you will find that that course will take that which you seem to have, and the Lord will say—“Let this man, that man, or the other man go, for he has acted on passion, and not on principle. Take that which he seems to have, and give it to him that has been faithful with the five, the two, the three, or the one talent.” That is the way it will be, by-and-by.

Sisters, do not ask whether you can make yourselves happy, but whether you can do your husband's will, if he is a good man. Teach your children; for you are their guardians, to act as father and mother to them until they are out of your care. The teachings and examples of our mothers have formed, to a great extent, our characters and directed our lives. This is their right, when they act by the power of the Priesthood, to direct the child until it is of a proper age, and then hand it over to the husband and father, and into the hands of God, with such faith and such love of virtue and truth, and with such love of God and its parents, that that child can never suppose that it is out of the hand and from under the control of the parent. Do not call it “mine.” Let your maxim be, “This is not mine,” whether you have one child or a dozen. “It is not mine, but the Lord has seen fit to let me bear the souls

of the children of men. It is from my Father and God, and I will do my duty and hand it over to him,” and have that faith that the child can never wring itself out of the hands of a good father and mother—can never stray away—no, never. That is the privilege of mothers. It is you who guide the affections and feelings of the child. It is the mothers, after all, that rule the nations of the earth. They form, dictate, and direct the minds of statesmen, and the feelings, course, life, notions, and sentiments of the great and the small, of kings, rulers, governors, and of the people in general.

Edited April 6, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

Bernard!  Lovely to see you!

[Stargazer]

On 4/7/2024 at 12:37 AM, Bernard Gui said:

From one who was in the trenches.

https://jod.mrm.org/9/31  Plural Marriage

I will now speak a little in regard to people's making themselves happy. We heard something upon that subject today and yesterday; and we frequently hear people preaching about heaven, paradise, and Zion; and if there is a comfort, a felicity, and good feeling, I want to say a few words about them; and I shall begin upon the doctrine so much beloved by Saint and sinner, and that is the plurality of women. The Saints like a plurality of wives, and the sinners like a plurality of men and women. I will say to the sisters that I have heard but very few women, and not a great many men, ever talk sensibly upon the plurality of wives. When they begin to talk about it, they exhibit, almost without an exception, passion instead of principle. Were we to appeal to passions of the people, we should promote the doctrine of a plurality of men and of women. But when we address ourselves to the Saints of the Most High God, it is very different and in a different light. It is for my sisters to be mothers of holy men and holy women—to receive and conceive in the name and by the power of the Holy Ghost—to bring forth their fruits to the praise and honor of the God of heaven. But what are the people doing here? “I want another wife,” and almost universally passion is exhibited instead of principle.

If the plurality of wives is to pander to the low passions of men and women, the sooner it is abolished the better. “How far would you go in abolishing it?” I would say, if the Lord should reveal that it is his will to go so far as to become a Shaking Quaker, Amen to it, and let the sexes have no connection. If so far as for a man to have but one wife, let it be so. The word and will of the Lord is what I want—the will and mind of God. He has revealed his mind and will. The time is coming when the Lord is going to raise up a holy nation. He will bring up a royal Priesthood upon the earth, and he has introduced a plurality of wives for that express purpose, and not to gratify lustful passion in the least. I would rather take my valise in my hand today, and never see a wife or a child again, and preach the Gospel until I go into the grave, than to live as I do, unless God commands it. I never entered into the order of plurality of wives to gratify passion. And were I now asked whether I desired and wanted another wife, my reply would be, It should be one by whom the Spirit will bring forth noble children. I am almost sixty years old; and if I now live for passion, I pray the Lord Almighty to take my life from the earth.

I know the weaknesses of humanity, and I understand the passions of men and women. I am sorry for them. I wish they had grace according to their day, creating such fortitude in them that they would determine to suffer unto death rather than violate a holy command of the Almighty, or transgress the bounds God has set. “Is that the way you have lived?” It is. It is the example I have set before my family from the day the Lord opened my mind to see the Gospel. Ask these sisters (many of them have known me for years), what my life has been in private and in public. It has been like the angel Gabriel's, if he had visited you; and I can live so still. But how are we to be made happy? There is one course—love the Giver more than the gift; love Him that has placed

37

passion in me more than my passions. Let passion lie at the feet of judgment, and let every attribute that God has bestowed on me be devoted to the righteous cause he has commenced upon the earth. This, and this alone, produces happiness. He has brought us forth, and we live and see this day that Prophets, kings, and millions of great and good men have prayed to see, but died without the sight. When they looked at it in vision, it cast a halo, around which was like the dawning of heaven to their souls, and they shouted, “Hallelujah!” beholding the spirit and glory of these times that we now live in. And we yield to passion? I say, Shame on the individual that says passion has anything to do with his life. It is crucified. It lies, as it were, at the foot of the cross. That is my faith, and it has been my life.

How will you be happy? Love the Giver more than the gift. Delight yourselves in your duties, mothers. Here are the middle-aged and the young. I am now almost daily sealing young girls to men of age and experience. Love your duties, sisters. Are you sealed to a good man? Yes, to a man of God. It is for you to bear fruit and bring forth, to the praise of God, the spirits that are born in yonder heavens and are to take tabernacles on the earth. You have the privilege of forming tabernacles for those spirits, instead of their being brought into this wicked world, that God may have a royal Priesthood, a royal people, on the earth. That is what plurality of wives is for, and not to gratify lustful desires. Sisters, do you wish to make yourselves happy? Then what is your duty? It is for you to bear children, in the name of the Lord, that are full of faith and the power of God—to receive, conceive, bear, and bring forth in the name of Israel's God, that you may have the honor of being the mothers of great and good men—of kings, princes, and potentates that shall yet live on the earth and govern and control the nations. Do you look forward to that? Or are you tormenting yourselves by thinking that your husbands do not love you? I would not care whether they loved a particle or not; but I would cry out, like one of old, in the joy of my heart, “I have got a man from the Lord!” “Hallelujah! I am a mother—I have borne an image of God!” Let your prayers ascend to God, and that continually, that he will overshadow the child by the power of the Holy Ghost before and after its birth—that the Holy Ghost may attend it continually. The mother should inquire what her duty is. It is to teach her children holiness, prayer to God, and to trust in Him. Teach them the holy religion and the commandments that are calculated to sanctify the people and bring them into the presence of our Father and God. But no; too often it is passion. If my passion is served, I am in heaven. The fire will have to burn them up. We must live by principle; and if we do, we shall attain to perfection—to being crowned with crowns of glory, immortality, and eternal lives. I would rather be purified here than to live ten thousand years to attain the same point in another existence. The man that enters into this order by the prompting of passion, and not with a view to honor God and carry out his purposes, the curse of God will rest upon him, and that which he seems to have will be taken from him and given to those that act according to principle. Remember it.

The world cries out against this obnoxious doctrine, that I should have more wives than one. And what would they do? Destroy the virtue of every woman in this community if they had the power. What do

38

they care about virtue? With comparatively few exceptions, no more than do the devils in hell. Most of the officers who have been sent here would have defiled every bed in this Territory, had they have had the power. Tell about this doctrine's being obnoxious to their delicate feelings! Yes, it is, in one sense. It keeps them at bay; it is hell to them; it is burning them up; and I say they may burn up, and they will.

Elders of Israel, have you entered into the doctrine that has been revealed, through passion? If you have, you will find that that course will take that which you seem to have, and the Lord will say—“Let this man, that man, or the other man go, for he has acted on passion, and not on principle. Take that which he seems to have, and give it to him that has been faithful with the five, the two, the three, or the one talent.” That is the way it will be, by-and-by.

Sisters, do not ask whether you can make yourselves happy, but whether you can do your husband's will, if he is a good man. Teach your children; for you are their guardians, to act as father and mother to them until they are out of your care. The teachings and examples of our mothers have formed, to a great extent, our characters and directed our lives. This is their right, when they act by the power of the Priesthood, to direct the child until it is of a proper age, and then hand it over to the husband and father, and into the hands of God, with such faith and such love of virtue and truth, and with such love of God and its parents, that that child can never suppose that it is out of the hand and from under the control of the parent. Do not call it “mine.” Let your maxim be, “This is not mine,” whether you have one child or a dozen. “It is not mine, but the Lord has seen fit to let me bear the souls

of the children of men. It is from my Father and God, and I will do my duty and hand it over to him,” and have that faith that the child can never wring itself out of the hands of a good father and mother—can never stray away—no, never. That is the privilege of mothers. It is you who guide the affections and feelings of the child. It is the mothers, after all, that rule the nations of the earth. They form, dictate, and direct the minds of statesmen, and the feelings, course, life, notions, and sentiments of the great and the small, of kings, rulers, governors, and of the people in general.

I was wondering how you were doing these days! Nice to hear from you again!

And thanks for that brilliant quote from Brother Brigham. 

[nuclearfuels]

On 4/4/2024 at 8:22 PM, MustardSeed said:

I’m genuinely curious what appeals to you on this lifestyle?

Honestly - more posterity, and more time with my spouse as kids and callings, taxes and tithing sometimes leaves little time left in the day. I'm sure she'd like having help being a homemaker, teacher, mother, wife, sister, etc. 

Surrogacy is a path to the same end - just not in the US where it's prohibitively expensive but not yet illegal.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Honestly - more posterity, and more time with my spouse as kids and callings, taxes and tithing sometimes leaves little time left in the day. I'm sure she'd like having help being a homemaker, teacher, mother, wife, sister, etc. 

Surrogacy is a path to the same end - just not in the US where it's prohibitively expensive but not yet illegal.

You are assuming both women would be happy living together?

More kids does not equal more time together as there are more kids to care for and to give one on one ton(unless you plan on being a mostly absentee father) and would also extend the time kids are in diapers over the years. 

If you ate the same meals together, that might save time, but if laundry already gives you full loads you are likely to be just doubling your work there, doubling bedrooms and bathrooms to be cleaned if your kids have as much room as they do now.  You are also doubling the time you need to spend at parent meetings and with the kids and doubling date nights, etc.

Besides sharing preparation of food, I don’t see much time saving in adding another family with a mother who would also have kids.   If anything you would have less time with your spouse since you would have to split what time is left after kids, job, church callings and household needs between the two women. 
 

And if wives have their own households, that’s two homes you have to split your time between and your wives don’t have your help for much of the time when you are with the other family. 

Edited April 13, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Honestly - more posterity, and more time with my spouse as kids and callings, taxes and tithing sometimes leaves little time left in the day. I'm sure she'd like having help being a homemaker, teacher, mother, wife, sister, etc. 

Surrogacy is a path to the same end - just not in the US where it's prohibitively expensive but not yet illegal.

How would dividing your time between two women give you more time with one?

[MustardSeed]

11 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Honestly - more posterity, and more time with my spouse as kids and callings, taxes and tithing sometimes leaves little time left in the day. I'm sure she'd like having help being a homemaker, teacher, mother, wife, sister, etc. 

Surrogacy is a path to the same end - just not in the US where it's prohibitively expensive but not yet illegal.

Thanks for the reply. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How would dividing your time between two women give you more time with one?

We can see from "Sister Wives" that one of the biggest issues for wives is not spending more time with hubby. (Unless, you start acting like Kody, than they're happy you're not there.)

Edited April 13, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

We can see from "Sister Wives" that one of the biggest issues for wives is not spending more time with hubby. (Unless, you start acting like Kody, than they're happy you're not there.)

Kody is such a twit. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Kody is such a twit. 

I'm not psychologist, but he seems to have a narcissistic personality. He says all he wants is loyalty and when Mari practically throws herself at his feet asking for forgiveness and does everything he asks, he says, "Nah."

Stoooopid, stoooopid man.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I'm not psychologist, but he seems to have a narcissistic personality. He says all he wants is loyalty and when Mari practically throws herself at his feet asking for forgiveness and does everything he asks, he says, "Nah."

Stoooopid, stoooopid man.

He does come across as very full of himself.

[The Nehor]

On 4/13/2024 at 9:39 AM, bluebell said:

How would dividing your time between two women give you more time with one?

Polyamory lesson #1: Love has no limits. Time to express that love is limited.

[manol]

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Polyamory lesson #1: Love has no limits. Time to express that love is limited.

This makes sense to me.

So... what happens when there is no such thing as time, such that time spent with one person does not take away from time that can be spent with another?  My understanding (based on numerous near-death experience accounts) is that time as we know it here does not exist (at least not as a limitation) on the "other side".

I speculate that the polyamorous community is ahead of the rest of us in your openness to "love has no limits", and I hope and expect that limitations imposed by time and locality will some day no longer be in play. 

Edited April 15, 2024 by manol