Nyal Posted March 17, 2010 Report Posted March 17, 2010 I am asking this question with all respect. I want to keep this as clinical as possible. Let's be adults here. I tried to get a straight answer out of the folks at MADB, but they are not able to handle the subject matter. Please keep the discussion clean. I ask this for purely intellectual reasons. I have been a member here for more than two years. I am not trolling. If a Mormon male back in the day could take multiple wives, and could live with several of them (as did BY), is there anything morally wrong about taking more than one of them to bed at a time? Could a member have two, three, or ten women at a single go? They are all married, it seems it would occur within the 'Bonds of Matrimony'. Has this question been explored before?
SMG Posted March 17, 2010 Report Posted March 17, 2010 That would have been the triple's/quadruple's/etc's business and nobody else's, IMO.
Nyal Posted March 17, 2010 Author Report Posted March 17, 2010 So would it fall within the Law of Chastity?
annamaureen Posted March 17, 2010 Report Posted March 17, 2010 (edited) The man is married to each woman, but the women aren't married to each other. It would be breaking the law of chastity to be sexually intimate with each other - which would happen if they were all in a bed together in a threesome/foursome/whatever. Edited March 17, 2010 by annamaureen
Nyal Posted March 17, 2010 Author Report Posted March 17, 2010 The man is married to each woman, but the women aren't married to each other. It would be breaking the law of chastity to be sexually intimate with each other - which would happen if they were all in a bed together in a threesome/foursome/whatever.I am certainly not familiar with the mechanics, but they would be intimate with the man, they could ignore one another perhaps?
annamaureen Posted March 17, 2010 Report Posted March 17, 2010 Regardless of whether the women are actually being intimate with each other, they're still in the bed of another married couple engaging in sexual acts. I can't imagine how that's not breaking the law of chastity in some form.
Jenamarie Posted March 17, 2010 Report Posted March 17, 2010 Don't know, can't say, don't care anyway. I agree with SMG. Not mine, or anybody else's business. Why is it an issue that anybody would need to "explore"? Having a deffinite answer to this question quiet honestly isn't necessary, since it's not something we're likely to ever really need to know.
hordak Posted March 17, 2010 Report Posted March 17, 2010 Nyal this is the most interesting (i.e non typical) polygamy question i have ever heard but i think it may belong in the open forum section. Befor the speculation gets to graphic.
Just_A_Guy Posted March 17, 2010 Report Posted March 17, 2010 I remember reading that this issue actually caused a split between some of the Fundamentalists in southern Utah some years back. Can't recall where I read it--and I'm afraid to Google the requisite terms--but you might start here.
rameumptom Posted March 17, 2010 Report Posted March 17, 2010 Polygamy is established by God through a prophet, whenever it is enacted. A man does not just start grabbing women for wives. It is a calling to be in a plural marriage. It is a spiritual union between man and woman. It is NOT a direct relationship between women, as they are not sealed together. For the man to have intimate relations with more than one at a time would break the solemnity and spiritual concepts of the covenant. The marriage bond also includes modesty. Intimacy in a relationship is to develop the marriage bond and to beget children. To turn it into an orgy would break the spiritual intent and purpose of the law.
rameumptom Posted March 17, 2010 Report Posted March 17, 2010 That would have been the triple's/quadruple's/etc's business and nobody else's, IMO.Which is an entirely wrong answer. The sealing is of God through prophets. It is not a worldly "till death do you part" event, but an eternal concept. Eternal marriage, whether plural or monogamy, is to develop eternal intimate relations between man and woman and to bring forth children. To have as you state IS the business of God and his prophets, as such would mock God's sacred trust.For example, about 15 years ago, many BYU students were dashing off on weekends to Nevada to marry, have a weekend of married sex, divorce, then return to school on Monday. LDS authorities DID get involved, telling the students that this was an evil and ex-communicable offense. They were taking something sacred (intimacy, marriage, and covenant) and trying to legalize licentious actions. The letter of the law was followed, but not the spirit, and so the Brethren clamped down on it.Having group sex, or sex in a group, is not intimacy. It breaks the law of chastity.
john doe Posted March 17, 2010 Report Posted March 17, 2010 And on that note, we're done. Thread closed.
Recommended Posts