Dangerous Affection (Caution Long Post)

[Bad Karma]

Just now, anatess2 said:

If, like Joseph Smith, God would tell my husband he has to take on another wife... in a heartbeat.  I need help with the laundry.

Oh wow... lol

Nah, I'll take my free agency and use it, to which I think would be the wisest choice. I've already have a wife, I've got too much love and respect for her to do that kind of thing to her. 

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Bad Karma said:

Oh wow... lol

Nah, I'll take my free agency and use it, to which I think would be the wisest choice. I've already have a wife, I've got too much love and respect for her to do that kind of thing to her. 

Yeah, that went very well with Joseph Smith... you know, just an angel laying down the law with the sword...

It's interesting that you think if God commands you to take on another wife that following such a command would be unloving and disrespectful to your wife.

I love my husband very much.  And because of that, I'm going to make as easy for him as possible to follow God's commands.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Bad Karma said:

Oh wow... lol

Nah, I'll take my free agency and use it, to which I think would be the wisest choice. I've already have a wife, I've got too much love and respect for her to do that kind of thing to her. 

I am just grateful I was born in the era of monogamy and I am leaving it at that.

[Bad Karma]

I just don't see God commanding me to bring pain and disrespect to my wife. Why would God give me free agency only to threaten me with an angel armed with a sword. Nah, not buying it. 

But again, we're not talking about polygamy here, you and are talking about the wife swappers, or that is the ORIGIN of this conversation between you and I. 

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I am just grateful I was born in the era of monogamy and I am leaving it at that.

No offense to DoctorLemon or any of the others who have expressed this sentiment, but I don't buy it. If we were born during the era of polygamy -- and especially if we were born into the Church -- we would accept it as normal and not that big of a deal.

The major social problem I see with polygamy is that boys and girls are born in roughly equal numbers. Even though boys die at a higher rate than girls and men die younger than women, the male:female ratio is something close to 1:1. Widespread polygamy would leave a lot of unmarried young men, which is a societal recipe for disaster -- not even considering the personal emotional cost to the young men left out. So in that sense, I'm glad not to have been born then. But then, I'm also glad not to have been born in the era before penicillin, painless dentistry, and the Pax Americana. That's basically a manifestation of presentism.

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, Bad Karma said:

I just don't see God commanding me to bring pain and disrespect to my wife. Why would God give me free agency only to threaten me with an angel armed with a sword. Nah, not buying it. 

But again, we're not talking about polygamy here, you and are talking about the wife swappers, or that is the ORIGIN of this conversation between you and I. 

So, let me understand this... You don't believe that God commanded Joseph Smith, at the point of a sword, to marry another woman?

We're not talking of polygamy yes.  I'm simply putting your "Absolute Monogamy" comment within context.

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by anatess2

[Bad Karma]

Just now, anatess2 said:

So, let me understand this... You don't believe that God commanded Joseph Smith, at the point of a sword, to marry another woman?

 

Do we have FREE AGENCY?

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, Bad Karma said:

Do we have FREE AGENCY?

Yes.  You are free to go against God.  But you didn't answer the question.

Edited November 16, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

No offense to DoctorLemon or any of the others who have expressed this sentiment, but I don't buy it. If we were born during the era of polygamy -- and especially if we were born into the Church -- we would accept it as normal and not that big of a deal.

The major social problem I see with polygamy is that boys and girls are born in roughly equal numbers. Even though boys die at a higher rate than girls and men die younger than women, the male:female ratio is something close to 1:1. Widespread polygamy would leave a lot of unmarried young men, which is a societal recipe for disaster -- not even considering the personal emotional cost to the young men left out. So in that sense, I'm glad not to have been born then. But then, I'm also glad not to have been born in the era before penicillin, painless dentistry, and the Pax Americana. That's basically a manifestation of presentism.

And like you said awhile back, polygamy doesn't apply to us and really has very little to do with us, so it isn't something we should be worried about or preoccupied with, just as we don't worry about some of the stranger religious rules and practices in the Old Testament.  Just a different practice for a different time.

Edited November 16, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Bad Karma]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes.  You are free to go against God.  But you didn't answer the question.

Then I'll take my free agency and use it.  I'll voice my refusal respectfully to heavenly father, lovingly, but I will voice and act upon my refusal nevertheless.

AGAIN, I remind you that our conversation ORIGIN is about wife swappers, sexual immorality. You attacked my position of absolute monogamy, which is doctrine now. Your argument lacks substance other than an odd attempt to pick a fight with me. Kinda not knowing why you're carrying on. 

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Bad Karma said:

Then I'll take my free agency and use it.  I'll voice my refusal respectfully to heavenly father, lovingly, but I will voice and act upon my refusal nevertheless.

AGAIN, I remind you that our conversation ORIGIN is about wife swappers, sexual immorality. You attacked my position of absolute monogamy, which is doctrine now. Your argument lacks substance other than an odd attempt to pick a fight with me. Kinda not knowing why you're carrying on. 

Sigh.  I did not attack your position on absolute monogamy.  I put it into context.  Obviously, Joseph Smith and Brighan Young not being in monogamous marriages was not disrespectful to their wives.

When God commands something - like he did to Joseph Smith - it is righteous regardless of how you feel about it.  God commanded Nephi to kill Laban.  God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac.  God commanded Joseph the carpenter to marry a woman pregnant with a child not his own.  God commanded the Apostles to leave their wives.  In these instances, obedience is righteous, disobedience is unrighteous.

Your statement of absolute monogamy is applicable because God commanded it.  This CAN change.  This is important because polygamy is an important part of our Church history.

[Bad Karma]

Just now, anatess2 said:

Sigh.  I did not attack your position on absolute monogamy.  I put it into context.  Obviously, Joseph Smith and Brighan Young not being in monogamous marriages was not disrespectful to their wives.

When God commands something - like he did to Joseph Smith - it is righteous regardless of how you feel about it.  God commanded Nephi to kill Laban.  God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac.  God commanded Joseph the carpenter to marry a woman pregnant with a child not his own.  God commanded the Apostles to leave their wives.  In these instances, obedience is righteous, disobedience is unrighteous.

Your statement of absolute monogamy is applicable because God commanded it.  This CAN change.  This is important because polygamy is an important part of our Church history.

I don't see God changing his mind, he was present when I made my vows, I'm pretty sure a state of monogamy was expressly spelled out, so NO, IT CANT CHANGE. Not if he's a God that keeps his promises, right? 

Again, I remind you that this discussion has an origin of my post about immoral sex, swinging, that kind of thing. 

[Latter-Day Marriage]

1 hour ago, Bad Karma said:

ANY husband that would share his wife with another is a creep. A LOW "man",  an oath breaker, a pervert. One can NOT call themselves LDS and be a swinger, how they think swinging makes their marriage better is insane. You can't REALLY know your wife at all, if you're messing around or having another mess around with her. There's a friendship and trust that grows out of absolute monogamy. 

My wife and I were talking today about monogamy, I'm glad I can give her a husband who's body belongs to her alone. Such a violation would bring endless tears to her beautiful face. Nope, not happening. She's just too important to me, she's that person that I would crawl on my hands and knees through five miles of broken glass for to get to her if she needed me. 

A so called LDS forum where that kind of talk is not only acceptable, but the norm, isn't a forum worth visiting, who wants to read that kind rubbish? Bleh....

You don't have to convince me.  There were some good people there too, but most of them celebrated when I was banned.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Ayayay... hang on a minute.  Let's qualify this here.  As you know, we had polygamous prophets.  So, absolute monogamy is only as God instructs... which can change.

Big difference though between taking a plural wife, making a sacred covenant to be a husband to her, and each spouse hooking up with somebody else just for the 'pleasure' of a night.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

1 hour ago, Bad Karma said:

Ok, I'll give you that. but we're not talking about polygamy, we're talking about swingers. and still, any man that would share his wife with another is still a punk.  So, we've already received instruction from the prophet no more polygamy. This is our doctrine.

Not exactly, we don't have authority to form a plural marriage here, but a man can be sealed to more than one woman.  Both Elder Nelson and Elder Oaks had their first wife die and were later sealed to another woman when they remarried.  If all of them keep their covenants, those two apostles will have plural wives in the eternities.  Many other men are in the same boat including my father in law, and even if a man dies sealed to only one wife that doesn't rule out the chance that in the millennium he could be sealed to another wife by proxy before his resurection.

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, Bad Karma said:

I don't see God changing his mind, he was present when I made my vows, I'm pretty sure a state of monogamy was expressly spelled out, so NO, IT CANT CHANGE. Not if he's a God that keeps his promises, right? 

Fidelity was spelled out in mine.  Monogamy the current commandment.  Yes, God keeps His promises.  So when it seems like He's breaking it, there's only one conclusion - we misunderstood the promise made.

 

9 minutes ago, Bad Karma said:

Again, I remind you that this discussion has an origin of my post about immoral sex, swinging, that kind of thing. 

Yes, I heard you the first time.

[Bad Karma]

Just now, anatess2 said:

 

Yes, I heard you the first time.

Excellent! 

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Big difference though between taking a plural wife, making a sacred covenant to be a husband to her, and each spouse hooking up with somebody else just for the 'pleasure' of a night.

Obviously.  That's not polygamy.  That's adultery.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

If, like Joseph Smith, God would tell my husband he has to take on another wife... in a heartbeat.  I need help with the laundry.

Same with my wife, but she would pass off the ironing to her.  I already do the laundry.  I would be a bit hurt that she would be so OK with it, my ego would want her to be jealous.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

48 minutes ago, Vort said:

The major social problem I see with polygamy is that boys and girls are born in roughly equal numbers. Even though boys die at a higher rate than girls and men die younger than women, the male:female ratio is something close to 1:1. Widespread polygamy would leave a lot of unmarried young men, which is a societal recipe for disaster -- not even considering the personal emotional cost to the young men left out. So in that sense, I'm glad not to have been born then. But then, I'm also glad not to have been born in the era before penicillin, painless dentistry, and the Pax Americana. That's basically a manifestation of presentism.

With the early Saints it was never 'open season' where any man who wanted a plural wife could just go get one.  The church had to approve it and the practice was limited to a small portion of the marriages (around 5% of adults were in a polygamous marriage if I recall correctly).  It was managable.  These polygamy cults however go way overboard and create issues with men who have no prospects.

In the Celestial Kingdom, I expect the demographics to be tilted strongly toward he females, and it is only there where there will be marriages.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Same with my wife, but she would pass off the ironing to her.  I already do the laundry.  I would be a bit hurt that she would be so OK with it, my ego would want her to be jealous.

I have a husband who, during our first few years of marriage, would tell me to go ahead and watch a movie with our male friend without him because he can't get home in time.  I would say, that would be so inappropriate.  And he would say, Why?  And I would say... because, I might cheat on you!  And he would think it's the funniest thing.  It used to bother me that he doesn't get jealous.  20 years later, I appreciate that I don't have to worry about it.

[MariDemure]

In all honesty the way you describe things I would think that the sister in law does not reciprocate these feelings you've romanticized the scenario and need to focus on your marriage ever consider taking an institute class called building on eternal marriage? Also consider how your wife would feel if the rolls were reversed would you feel confortable with your wife talking to your sibling in the same manner? Marriage is something we all need to work at it isn't always perfect maybe consider letting your wife know that you miss being complimented or you would like to have deep compelling conversations. 

[Dream Weaver]

Subir,  you sound like someone I met recently, but his story was a bit different.  Be careful with the flirting, especially depending on what kind of work you do, do you flirt with your customers/coworkers/staff?  If you are rich/good looking/powerful/spiritual/nice/friendly/funny, you are a hot commodity, and many women will have no problem trying to "get" you, even if you are married, some will even try to steal you away from your wife.  That is something that can happen with you being flirty, maybe they see that as a green light, then you might be put in the position of having to turn them down, or become very uncomfortable around them.  Women like attention from good looking men, makes us feel better about ourselves, but keep it innocent so you don't cross any lines and they can't accuse you of anything either. 

Daydreaming/fantasizing about others is a form of escapism, but when we realize they are not perfect (and come with there own set of problems) and won't fix us, you might be able to come back down to earth and think logically and do the right thing.  

I am not LDS, but am Christian, I am here because I met someone like you and he was just unique enough for me to want to know what LDS people are like.   I hope that statement is not offensive to anyone, it wasn't meant to be.  I know we are all unique and different.

Don't say anything to the SIL unless you are willing to sacrifice everything for her.  Don't do it...it can only hurt.