Especially For Women

[Aristotle]

Edited by Aristotle

[tngu]

Nope. I would leave. With the kids, the house, and a nice check each month.

If he had to do it against his will (Church required it) I would only say okay if there was absolutely no sexual relations of any kind. It would be a matter of taking care of a women who had lost her husband and needed the financial support for her and her children. She would have her own guest house and my husband would not be allowed to be alone with her.

Hmm, I guess that pretty much says how I feel about polygamy

Me too!!

[Fiannan]

I'll still give up my wife to a polygamous relationship.

I'll even add in a dowry.

Please!

Sounds like a Rodney Dangerfield line! I believe he married a young Mormon woman a few years before his death and always liked to make jokes about polygamy.

As for women who don't want their husbands in polygamy that would be fine -- less competition for the ones who would.

[Seraphim Moonshadow]

I would say no. Nada. A woman has her choice and no, my husband will be my own. It would be unfair, however, in a way, to have a woman marry a husband who couldn't even love her. It would be...extremely taxing on the soul and something I'm not going to deal with.

[Aristotle]

I, Mrs. A, would like to thank all of the ladies for responding. The general consensus about sharing one's husband is: "No way, Jose!"

My husband, Aristotle, concurs. ;-)

[Guest Monica]

Which wife is responsible for picking up his dirty, sweaty, stink socks?

[Lindy]

I agree Heather... if it came down to taking care of another woman... I could understand that.. but rules and regs would be set down in a hurry....NO TOUCHY. But I don't need any Bling presents to make me feel good about it.... just love, loyalty and honesty within a relationship....and I'll be happy to share my life with someone else.... NO TOUCHY! and things will be fine....

While I agree with your sentiments..... is it really a marraige for the second wife? Or did you just hire a maid/slave using the cover of Church authority? Given the legality of the institution, if your husband did have relations, as is his right, wouldn't you be in a bit of a religious paradox when it came to the dissolution of the marraige, especially given your Temple promises, mixed in with the re-instatement of the marraige program of polygamy?

Thanks Scott for agreeing with my sentiments at least :), but I really don't care if it's a real marriage for the second wife or not... selfish of me yes! There were/ are? marriages of convience.... But the NO TOUCHY rules and regs will be strictly enforced. And if the hubby decided to have "relations' as his "right".... he would be out on his tush so fast .... and things would have to be delt with from there. There is a line drawn with "sharing" Any woman who needed a place to stay would have to abide by my rules, or go find someone a lot more lienent on "sharing".

[shanstress70]

To all my LDS female friends, you better get used to the idea, because that is what your heaven will be like, according to what I've read and learned about. I could never get used to it; hence my constant questioning, finding out other issues that I disagreed with, my coming to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was not a prophet, and finally leaving.

Remember that men are allowed to be sealed to multiple women while women are only allowed to be sealed to one man. There IS a reason for that. And it isn't so that the woman can be 'cared for' in heaven!

[Outshined]

Of course you should realize that even if polygamy was legalized, that doesn't mean the Church doctrines would change to accept it.

[pushka]

I wouldn't be happy with it...In fact, I'm not sure I ever want to be married again anyway... :)

[Outshined]

I don't recall hearing that the Church required it of members even when it was practiced. But as I said even if it was legalized now that's no indication that the God will ever require it as doctrine again, nor that the Church would ever practice it agin.

[sgallan]

I wouldn't be happy with it...In fact, I'm not sure I ever want to be married again anyway...

Though technically still married..... I'm in agreement.

[Seraphim Moonshadow]

Which wife is responsible for picking up his dirty, sweaty, stink socks?

The other one, since I'd be gone.

[Guest Syble]

Which wife is responsible for picking up his dirty, sweaty, stink socks?

The last one with him at night. *evil grin*

I don't recall hearing that the Church required it of members even when it was practiced. But as I said even if it was legalized now that's no indication that the God will ever require it as doctrine again, nor that the Church would ever practice it agin.

It was only required of the most righteous. Most didn't qualify. So men out there--don't get all twitterpated if it does come back in. You must be called and worthy to be among those chosen to practice.

[Aristotle]

Only the righteous were called to practice polygamy. The reason it was discontinued is because of its abuse. My understanding is that the first wife must give her consent before her husband takes another wife. Incidentally, the definition of polygamy is more than one spouse, male or female. If polygamy is practiced in heaven, both male/female are entitled to multiple partners.

[Guest Syble]

Only the righteous were called to practice polygamy. The reason it was discontinued is because of its abuse. My understanding is that the first wife must give her consent before her husband takes another wife. Incidentally, the definition of polygamy is more than one spouse, male or female. If polygamy is practiced in heaven, both male/female are entitled to multiple partners.

I like your thinking. But in a patriarchial order, it wouldn't work. Two priesthood leaders running one home and one woman. LOL

[Aristotle]

<div class='quotemain'>

Only the righteous were called to practice polygamy. The reason it was discontinued is because of its abuse. My understanding is that the first wife must give her consent before her husband takes another wife. Incidentally, the definition of polygamy is more than one spouse, male or female. If polygamy is practiced in heaven, both male/female are entitled to multiple partners.

I like your thinking. But in a patriarchial order, it wouldn't work. Two priesthood leaders running one home and one woman. LOL

Thanks, I like your thinking, too.

It sounds like rolling pin time, doesn't it? ;-)

[Outshined]

It was only required of the most righteous. Most didn't qualify. So men out there--don't get all twitterpated if it does come back in. You must be called and worthy to be among those chosen to practice.

That goes for the women as well...

The reason it was discontinued is because of its abuse.

Source? An official Church document, of course...

[shanstress70]

If polygamy is practiced in heaven, both male/female are entitled to multiple partners.

Where do you get this stuff? Sometimes I think you are not LDS at all... just posing to make the LDS people look bad.

If this were case (about male and female each being allowed to have multiple partners), why are men allowed to be sealed to multiple women, but not vice versa? You are going against some of your church's apologists' arguments that state that the reason for men being able to marry more women is to increase the population.

You are living in a fantasy world, as far as this polygamy thing goes!

[Aristotle]

Edited by Aristotle

[Jason]

I don't recall hearing that the Church required it of members even when it was practiced. But as I said even if it was legalized now that's no indication that the God will ever require it as doctrine again, nor that the Church would ever practice it agin.

Ok, but the Church doesn't require you to pay tithing, hold a temple recommend, be endowed, or attend. But you do it anyway, right? Polygamy is in the same boat.

And Im sure you know that Polygamy was only discontinued because it was illegal after 40 years of breaking the law, the Church finally complied due to the laws.

From Official Declaration #1: "Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise."

The Church thought they could get away with it again after they gained Statehood. However, events proved otherwise.

[Aristotle]

The reason it was discontinued is because of its abuse.

Source? An official Church document, of course...

Official Church documentation proving otherwise?

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

The reason it was discontinued is because of its abuse.

Source? An official Church document, of course...

Official Church documentation proving otherwise?

She who makes the assertion is required to provide the documentation. It's called "burden of proof".

[shanstress70]

3. The definition of polygamy is taken from Webster's Dictionary.

I know what the definition of the word is, but your church is clearly not talking about women marrying multiple men. What your church practised in the past, and likely will again in your idea of heaven is actually called 'polygyny'.

[Prend1]

I had a bishop tell me once that in heaven the law of consecration and polygamy would be reinstated....of course this was after I had been sealed to my husband in the temple and I was horrified. It's been bothering me ever since.