DiscussMormonism.com

A revelation came from the Lord that your cherished beloved bride would be required to take another husband. Not only were you to support her, and approve of this, but you were to also be a supportive "brother husband" to this man who would share physical and emotional intimacies with your wife, who is your best friend, lover, and life partner. This "brother husband" would also be sharing your wife's bed, fathering her children, making life decisions with her.

And if you show any sign of jealousy, you are merely told to "suck it up" by other Church members. You just don't understand true faithfulness, and are simply weak. "Someday, you will understand what a blessed commandment this is, and it will all become clear to you."

If you dare....really put yourself in this position. Don't simply dismiss it because it is not the current reality.

Does this at least give you a glimpse as to why accepting plural marriage as an eternal law would be difficult for faithful LDS women to understand or deal with?

I would really appreciate your serious thoughts and discussion on this matter.

When I first learned about Joseph Smith marrying other man's wives I thought about what it would be like for those men to have to share their wives with the prophet. How terrible it must have been for them. Then I realized that this was essentially what every woman involved in polygamy experienced.
It's embarassing to admit but I don't think I appreciated the ugliness of polygamy until I knew about polyandry.

-

Stormy Waters wrote:When I first learned about Joseph Smith marrying other man's wives I thought about what it would be like for those men to have to share their wives with the prophet. How terrible it must have been for them. Then I realized that this was essentially what every woman involved in polygamy experienced.
It's embarassing to admit but I don't think I appreciated the ugliness of polygamy until I knew about polyandry.

Thanks, Stormy Waters! I really appreciate your honesty.

I just don't understand how a situation where there was eternal plural marriage could cause anything but heartbreak. And, why would God give us the ability to fall in love, and have that type of intense relationship with someone, if the ultimate situation (plural marriage) would cause such pain? That is not the type of forever situation I would want any part of. Why is it so hard for apologists to really grasp this concept?

Get with the program, Liz.



Paul O

Liz, I most certainly have considered this scenario. I couldn't live it.

The jealousy and rage that could erupt, in this type of scenario, would likely lead to dead bodies turning up with some frequency. Men would not simply write of personal woes in their journals about having to live this new celestial law. Heads would roll.

But I guess that's the whole point of the matter, we didn't have to take the short end of the marital arrangement. Holding the priesthood means you always draw the longest straw.

Maxrep wrote:Liz, I most certainly have considered this scenario. I couldn't live it.

The jealousy and rage that could erupt, in this type of scenario, would likely lead to dead bodies turning up with some frequency. Men would not simply write of personal woes in their journals about having to live this new celestial law. Heads would roll.

But I guess that's the whole point of the matter, we didn't have to take the short end of the marital arrangement. Holding the priesthood means you always draw the longest straw.

You'd be sent on a mission halfway around the world and wouldn't even know it until you got home... and your wife was pregnant.

liz3564 wrote:If you dare....really put yourself in this position. Don't simply dismiss it because it is not the current reality.

Does this at least give you a glimpse as to why accepting plural marriage as an eternal law would be difficult for faithful LDS women to understand or deal with?

Oh, I understand why accepting plural marriage would be difficult for faithful women "to understand or deal with." I'm no big fan of polygamy. However, I'm also not a big fan of the alternative. Are you?

liz3564 wrote:I would really appreciate your serious thoughts and discussion on this matter.

I've actually been exposed to this scenario for a long time, namely twenty years, the twenty years that Sandy and I have been married. She made it clear from the outset that she didn't want to be in a polygamous marriage either in this life or the next, and she explicitly said that if polygamy ever did come back to the LDS Church, she wanted the option to have multiple husbands, not the other way around.

KevinSim wrote:

liz3564 wrote:If you dare....really put yourself in this position. Don't simply dismiss it because it is not the current reality.

Does this at least give you a glimpse as to why accepting plural marriage as an eternal law would be difficult for faithful LDS women to understand or deal with?

Oh, I understand why accepting plural marriage would be difficult for faithful women "to understand or deal with." I'm no big fan of polygamy. However, I'm also not a big fan of the alternative. Are you?

What alternative would that be?

liz3564 wrote:I would really appreciate your serious thoughts and discussion on this matter.

Kevin wrote:I've actually been exposed to this scenario for a long time, namely twenty years, the twenty years that Sandy and I have been married. She made it clear from the outset that she didn't want to be in a polygamous marriage either in this life or the next, and she explicitly said that if polygamy ever did come back to the LDS Church, she wanted the option to have multiple husbands, not the other way around.

And your response?

liz3564 wrote:What alternative would that be?

For Latter-day Saints, just as it is for Protestants of all denominations, there are three actively attending women for every two actively attending men. That leaves a surplus of women. Now some of the women aren't going to have a great desire to marry, and some of them are going to be okay with marrying men that can't take them to the temple, either inside or outside the LDS Church. But I think even if you subtract those women out, you're still going to have a surplus.

So the alternative is monogamy for the lucky, and celibacy for the unlucky. I ask you again, are you okay with the alternative?

liz3564 wrote:And your response?

Oh, I was more than happy to go along with it. I don't expect polygamy to ever come back to the LDS Church anyhow, so that was an easy condition to go along with.