person0

I keep finding advantages to plural marriage

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Second, I am already married to a man a truly admire.

I specifically said, "unmarried women".  Aside from that, I expect that the so called 'inferiority complex' of which you speak, for the faithful, would in reality develop into greater love and gratitude, and lead the spouse to greater perfection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, person0 said:

 Aside from that, I expect that the so called 'inferiority complex' of which you speak, for the faithful, would in reality develop into greater love and gratitude, and lead the spouse to greater perfection.

So by being married to @person0, a woman can solve all her problems? Dude, I have a big ego, but....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, person0 said:

I was responding to @LiterateParakeet's complaint about the concept of being married to Jesus, not to me.

Joking, nothing personal. 

Take it from someone in the compound my friend. Plural marriage is complicated. Ask @zil. And @LadyGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Suzie said:

"The way I understood Suzie's comment was not that she was calling Mrs. Person) a free maid or babysitter, but implying that a free maid and babysitter appears to be Person0"s reason for polygamy.    That is how I interpreted his comments as well.  @classylady seems to have been thinking along the same lines when she said: "You don’t need another wife, you need a live-in maid/housekeeper, like Alice from the “Brady Bunch.” 

@Anddenex

Thanks, this is exactly what I meant @LiterateParakeet

I knew what you meant :) This is why I provided the following emoticon at the end of my statement ;) giving you a hard time.

The way I understood @person0 is that he was specifying the common daily affairs of a domestic engineer, and how if there were more than one person it would alleviate time and possible burden. In my first response to this the family member I have specified what person0 mentioned as a great help. So, I was giving you a hard time with regards to "maid and housekeeper" as I could see some wives not liking their daily affairs to be seen as simply a maid or housekeeper.

I admit though, somedays (I mean like, one day our whole marriage ;) ) , Ms. Anddenex has said to me, "I am not your maid or housekeeper. Put the computer down and help." :D

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Paul Stanley big ego...

In his autobiography he comes across as incredibly fragile. I can understand that. The poor man was born with only one ear, and was bullied terribly because of it. Does he have a big ego? Oh yes, but it's clearly because he's trying to overcompensate. In reality, he's extremely thin skinned (not that I'm one to talk about anyone being thin skinned). That's why he won't go on Eddie Trunks show. That's why he won't talk to Vinnie Vincent-the list goes on. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, zil said:

Yeah, it takes a shocking number of us just to keep him in line. :itwasntme:

Hey, I can balance 44 wives and still find time to play 12 hours of video games a day! 

Take notes @person0. This is how you rock polygamy bro. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Would you want to put your wife through that? 

Absolutely not!  I specifically included a disclaimer - twice - (and @Vort provided a similar disclaimer for himself) to clearly indicate that I am not suggesting I want a second wife, nor am I suggesting that I want plural marriage to be reinstated.

What baffles me the most is how this thread contains a plethora of statements by those who have denigrated even the notion of plural marriage, while also knowing and acknowledging that God and his Prophets have at times taught it and sanctified it.

Quote

Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created. (D&C 29:34)

Quote

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; (D&C 132:61)

Quote

There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—  And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. (D&C 130:20-21)

Clearly, there are blessings to be obtained from plural marriage.  In fact, there is a law upon which it is predicated!  Plural marriage is still very much a principle of the gospel that is ordained of God, and sanctified.  Otherwise, all past plural sealings would be an abomination.  Plural marriage is not evil, breaking the commandments of God is evil.  The scriptures even clearly indicate that even the desire to have more than one wife is not inherently evil, but is also justified by the Lord.  To reiterate a third time, this is not my desire, I'm just making a point.  However, to suggest that plural marriage is inherently flawed is directly contrary to the laws God has given unto man.

There must be something special and significant about it or we wouldn't have a whole section of scripture in the Doctrine & Covenants that teaches it.  Given that we can't even have the missing pages of the Book of Mormon, or the words of Zenos, or the many other volumes of missing or yet to be revealed scripture, we have been given scripture dedicated to the topic of plural marriage, and yet there are so many who wish to disparage it.

Either plural marriages were ordained by God, or they weren't, but if they were, we should treat them as such.  Either plural sealings will be justified and glorified through Christ, or they will not be, but if they will, then we should justify what Christ justifies.  This seems to me to be elementary. 

(not all of this is specifically directed at you @MormonGator, I just kept going with it)

Edited by person0
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

The OP makes it sound like it's her idea. Why do you want to hold women back like some sort of misogynist?

I wouldn't stop her legally. To me polygamy is like gay marriage. It's not up to you or the state to decide what private contracts individuals choose to enter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think "plural marriage" (or its more popular form, "marriages") is highly advantageous when you want to refer to multiple instances of "marriage".  For example, a parent might say, "All my children have successful marriages."  Or a social scientist might comment, "Many marriages end in divorce."  Etc.  When referring to a single instance of marriage, however, there is absolutely no advantage to "plural marriage" (aka "marriages").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, person0 said:

I agree with the sentiment, my wife would likely experience similar thoughts and feelings, but isn't that exactly what happened with Jacob (Israel) and his two wives Rachel and Leah?  Were not their marriages holy and ordained?

Their marriage is not mine. I know that I could not handle it if my husband had children with another woman. My life and experiences are different from them.

I would not have been able to deal with my daughter being stillborn and multiple miscarriages while some other woman had my husband's babies. I know that. Maybe that's why I was born when I was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, LadyGunnar said:

I know that I could not handle it if. . .

I think most of us don't know what or how much we can handle, until we handle it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 7:00 AM, zil said:

I have always understood that she will be sealed to one and only one of these in eternity and that this is done because no one is sure which of the husbands is the right husband and thus we're covering all potential bases.  I have never ever heard or seen anything anywhere to suggest that any woman will have more than one husband in eternity, whereas I have seen nothing but the idea that she will have only one.

(Not commenting here on personal preference or belief, just what I have learned in my lifetime in the Church.)

Unfortunately, by DOING as they have, the Church Implicitly implies a belief in women being married to more than one husband and at least a couple individuals I have known have interpreted it in that way.

It is not doctrine and I know of no scriptures that state anything akin to that, but once they started to do things in that manner it was inevitable.  There are MANY reasons given prior to the 1990s WHY they did NOT do this, but...hey...modernism.

Supposedly it is that woman will be given a choice...but if that is true for sealing multiple men to woman in theory it should also be true for multiple women to a man.

From the stories given of WHY they started doing it, it sounded MORE like it started from a General Authorities PERSONAL reasons rather than an actual deeper revelation. 

That is neither here or there, the short of it is that because they started to do this, I have heard from more than one person the suggestion that such things also exist in the afterlife (multiple men sealed to one woman, and vice versa like some all encompassing hippie compound where everyone is sealed to everyone).

I think it is ridiculous, but that's the idea that was started with some after the Church decided to go in that direction.

Even when the Church tries to clarify that what they really meant is for woman to have a choice, that already existed with the previous system (if we are going by the idea that everything will be cleared up in the millennium).   In this, actions speak louder than words for some, and by acting to seal a woman to every husband she has ever had, it speaks just as loudly as sealing a man to every wife he's ever had.  The implication is that they are all sealed together.

I don't think it works that way, but I DO know of some that think this.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Unfortunately, by DOING as they have, the Church Implicitly implies a belief in women being married to more than one husband and at least a couple individuals I have known have interpreted it in that way. ...

Anyone who thinks that has not:

  • Read and understood the scriptures - all of them, start to end.
  • Paid attention to Church teachings on plural marriage, the family, nor the God-defined roles of men and women (frankly, I hear a lot of things, including from faithful regulars here that are equally in denial of this).
  • Comprehended biology and logic

I'm sorry folks, but it is so blindingly obvious that to believe that women can have more than one husband in the eternities is driven by something utterly contrary to everything taught in the Church.  It has no more foundation than the great and spacious building of Lehi's dream.

Further, if one person can comprehend that this is done because it is uncertain to whom she should be sealed, and that it's a technicality so that the right sealings won't need to be done later, then everyone can understand.

IMO, anyone who does comprehend ought to set straight those with pipe dreams of multiple husbands or sharing a wife with each other.  I doubt I would even believe this idea if God himself told me it was reality - it is that contrary to all known reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

the Church Implicitly implies

People often mistake their own false inferences for someone else's implications. That appears to be the case here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, zil said:

Anyone who thinks that has not:

  • Read and understood the scriptures - all of them, start to end.
  • Paid attention to Church teachings on plural marriage, the family, nor the God-defined roles of men and women (frankly, I hear a lot of things, including from faithful regulars here that are equally in denial of this).
  • Comprehended biology and logic

I'm sorry folks, but it is so blindingly obvious that to believe that women can have more than one husband in the eternities is driven by something utterly contrary to everything taught in the Church.  It has no more foundation than the great and spacious building of Lehi's dream.

 

Oh, I agree and this was ONE of the MANY reasons why Brigham Young and other Prophets and apostles through the years prior to 1990 would give for NOT sealing a woman to more than one husband.  Even when pushed on multiple things in that regard, this was a MAJOR reason why they constantly said this was not the order of things.

It was an abrupt 180 degree turn when the church decided to do that because one General Authority decided to do so from what appeared to be personal reasons.

Quote

Further, if one person can comprehend that this is done because it is uncertain to whom she should be sealed, and that it's a technicality so that the right sealings won't need to be done later, then everyone can understand.

IMO, anyone who does comprehend ought to set straight those with pipe dreams of multiple husbands or sharing a wife with each other.  I doubt I would even believe this idea if God himself told me it was reality - it is that contrary to all known reality.

It's not just done in situations where there is uncertainty.  I have a relative (who, in theory should have been my decision on who she got sealed to or not) who EXPRESSELY stated that if her work was ever done she was to be sealed to such and such a husband and expressely NOT be sealed to another (who was excessively abusive to the point that she fled away from him, and eventually got a divorce).  She was sealed regardless of her wishes, to both.

We do the same ceremony for woman and men.  ACTIONS on this speak FAR louder than words, and the actions we take on this today have conveyed a specific type of idea to some.

The original idea was that woman should ONLY be sealed to one husband, typically the one that they were either married to first, OR in some instances, if they were divorced, who they were married to at the time of their death.

If there were mistakes, then these would be cleared up in the millennium.  Takes a LOT less paperwork to seal those outliers than to clear up all the extra marriages done for every individual afterwards.

Same excuse, different reasoning and how they go about it.

Reason it gets under my craw in some ways is shortly thereafter I had a lady who put out this crazy theory that this meant that all women who had such were sealed to all their husbands.  I countered this (basically saying she was incorrect and this is NOT what happened) only to be told I was a mere Elder (at the time) and an older one at that.  Obviously I was wrong because her husband was in the Stake Presidency and thus knew far better (and hence was far more holy and knew more than someone as sinful as an older Elder must be [sarcasm])..

She was never corrected.  She probably felt it put me in my place (and yes, I still am not a Stake President or been in a Stake Presidency, so I suppose she still has that "higher ground" if one goes that way). 

I STILL did not agree with her interpretation, but it spoke VERY Clearly and loudly to me what doing these types of things could convey.  And me, as I have no position of authority in their eyes, obviously was seen as giving the wrong interpretation and having the wrong opinon.

So, yeah, don't agree with what they think, but to me it's obvious that there are those that think this way whether or not we intend for it to be that way or not.

 

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

It's not just done in situations where there is uncertainty.

That's because human certainty is, by definition, flawed.

4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

She was sealed regardless of her wishes, to both.

As we both know, no sealing is binding on anyone unless they choose for it to be binding on them.

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

ACTIONS on this speak FAR louder than words

Only to those who choose to ignore 100% of known reality.  To those of us who understand everything that has been shown and revealed thus far, the actions say something entirely compatible with the words; only those who have buried their heads in their nice, loose, sandy foundation will see the actions as contrary to the words.

7 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

She was never corrected.

Eternity will correct all.  In the meantime, you did right by telling her she was wrong, and it's now on her head.

9 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

So, yeah, don't agree with what they think, but to me it's obvious that there are those that think this way whether or not we intend for it to be that way or not.

There are people who think same-sex marriage will one day be sealed in the temple, too.  Neither has a leg to stand on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lord has cautioned men that they will be judged by their thoughts, idle words, and I imagine idle things they write, their deeds, and would be glad if the rocks could hide them from the presence of God at the last day, if they are guilty of certain sins.  Of the nature of those sins and what is in a man's heart, that is between him and the Lord.  I beleive that the Lord should find it offensive when men speak lightly of the benefits of polygamy, in a way that is not sacred, and in which is not conducive to the spirit of the Lord.  Today, in the Church, and in The Book of Mormon (which we should all be studying daily), it professes monogamy as the Lord's standard for marriage, and surely if there were more righteous men , there would not be so much of a need for possible polygamy.  Ofcourse no one, men or women are perfect, we all are trying, but I see this as an issue that bears a need for obvious sensitivity, which some have shown, and that is to be appreciated.  

     Jacob told the husbands of the covenant, who knew better, that they were breaking the hearts of their wives and children because of there selfish desires, and behaviors.  They were stupid, willing to embark on a path of destruction of their eternal family, disregarding the feelings of those they covenanted to protect and  cherish all for some superficial fling that means nothing.  How dumb, how tragic!    Willing to give up any chance for eternal peace and glory for something that would only brand them as a coward, a bastard and a fool.  Why would a priesthood holder sink so low and pay such a high price?   Ofcourse no one is that silly today.  (who are we kidding?)

    Lets turn the coin around:  What are the disadvantages of polygamy?   Men can't concentrate on substance, they only see the surface.  Men are visual by nature anyway, now the problem is compounded even more.  We already live in a society where men are taught to treat us women as objects, and even in the church its obvious some men still have a hard time with that, just look at one of the flippant comments that was made on this thread,   will men , even "some so called "priesthood holders" ever get beyond focusing on a women's looks and capabilities to be a baby machine, a cook , a laundress, and see her really as a human being, an equal, a person, a daughter of God, and not even that, but just a friend.  Someone to treat with respect.    When given multiple wives, supposedly by the Lord, how quick is the man to lose sight of the whole reason for polygamy in the first place.  A man that thinks this way, surely shouldn''t be practicing polygamy anyway, nor would the Lord grant it to him.    A quote in church history says that a man may refuse to take the 2nd wife in eternity and be justified before the Lord.  Monogamy is something the Lord does allow.  Perhaps it is a test for men , as well as for women.  Some men may say, "well, polygamy is a commandment, so my wife just needs to go along with it,"  but in looking deeper in church history, I have seen otherwise and I have seen that really it is up to us and our attitudes sometimes as to what we cause.  I mean a man  may inflict something on his wife that she doesn't necessarily have to go through.  In the Bible God told a prophet he would destroy a city, and the prophet asked him   to not if so many people could be found righteous in it.  And he plead with God, and kept changing the number, and God worked with him.  So maybe God wants to see where a man's heart is.  A woman would definitely be glad to see if her husband wouldn't be so quick to just embrace polygamy.  I mean, ofcourse we should follow commandments, but that doesn't mean we can't ask about do we really have to do this if our spouse has a hard time with it, etc.  And I don't think that makes us a bad person or unfaithful necessarily.  Sometimes , we may have to change to succumb to His will, but sometimes He may let us choose and it would be right for us.  Polygamy in church history, though condoned by the Lord did cause many trials.  Of course it was hard to live the law.  Some accounts show that men, went behind there wife's back in marrying another,  due to The Law of Sarah or obeying God's Law or for whatever reason.  However, this made it hard to have a trustworthy relationship in a marriage.  And did these women ever get STD's without even knowing what was going on?  It raises some hard questions.  These could even be passed on to babies being born and babies dying and comprimise the health of the women.  Also, it was hard emotionally on the women and the children and the husbands.  Providing for all their needs  financially and time wise was a burden.  The more wives and children you have, the more laundry, the more mouths to feed, the more quarrels, the more illnesses, the less of you to go around.  Studies have shown that children from polygamous families have been at  a disadvantage , they are generally (and it doesn't matter  FLDS, LDS or otherwise), less educated, lower income -don't have their needs met as much, emotionally not as stable, then children from monogamous families.  Also wives from polygamous marriages fair worse statistically, the same reasons apply.   And statistically, women in monogamous marriages have more babies each, then women in polygamous marriages and enjoy a stable, closer , more loving relationship with their spouse, because they don't have to share him.  And she  knows he is 3 being faithful  to her.   There is a stronger bond of trust and mutual love and respect.  I'm sorry, but I would have a harder time respecting a man that was not being faithful to just me.  Marriage should be between one man and one woman.

   Now, let's turn the coin and see what benefit there could be from polyandry, I mean , not that I need another husband, but I sure could use some things fixed around the house!    1.   things could get fixed in a reasonable amount of time, and get fixed  2.  have more interesting men to talk to, a variety of male adult companionship, not be just bored with just one   3.  a greater appreciation for the uniqueness and gifts and talents  given to the family   4.  greater protection  5. more priesthood power  6..  more date nights!  7.  I might even get flowers finally!   8.   have an intelligent conversation  9.  have more friends  10.   expand my horizons  11.  better providers  

12..  be able to serve others more  13.  take vacations  14.  choose to work or stay home  15.  have many attractive and interesting husbands, but that's not what its about   16.  increase the adventure in my life  17.  have more kids and give them more enriching experiences 

 

Ok, well, I prefer monogamy.  I don't think that  anybody should be dreaming of polygamy or polyandry.  I know I'm not.  I think the Lord's standard today is pretty clear.  A modern prophet has said to choose your love and love your choice.  The seminary or institute of religion manual has cautioned that polygamy should not be taken out of context and not alluded to as what will be practiced in eternity.  We really don't know.  We have been taught that monogamous marriages are sufficient to enter exaltation.  And our hearts need to be pure and right before God.  Joseph Smith would not allow his brother to practice polygamy because he was too eager, his heart was not right.  Joseph Smith hesitated for years to practice it.  Brigham Young at first desired the grave rather then practice it.  Please be sensitive what posts are made regarding this subject and what you choose to say about it all the days of your life, and thank you to those who do.

      

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, person0 said:

I think most of us don't know what or how much we can handle, until we handle it.

Indeed...  My wife and I have a special needs child...  We have had many people come up and say something like "I do not think I could handle that" Or " I do not know how you handle that" and in public we just smile and nod..  But in private we are  like...  "What other option do we have?  We would fix it if we could but that is not something the Lord has given us...  And all the options for Not Handling it are so... so... much worse.. to the point that they are unacceptable."

For plural marriage the options are "Doing what he Lord says" and handling all that comes with that... or "Not doing what the Lord says" and handling all that comes with that.  (and currently the Lord says no)  The whole point of this life is to see if we will do what the Lord commands, we should not expect all of those commands to be easy.  Hopefully we will gain wisdom to realize that not following the Lord is so... so.. much worse.

 

Edited by estradling75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, person0 said:

I think most of us don't know what or how much we can handle, until we handle it.

I know I couldn't handle it. I got through it with my husband by my side. If he had another wife and family, I would have gone to a dark place and not come out.  I know myself. Like I said there is a reason why I was born when I was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now