Speculation on Polygamy...

[_harmony]

I think the percentage of 1st wife members would rapidly decline as soon as they realized that their financial support was cut in half, their children were only going to spend half their normal time with their father, and they'd only have half the man's emotional output.

I can tell you this: if my husband wanted to follow the prophet in this, then he'd follow the prophet. I'd encourage him to. Because if he wanted to follow the prophet, then he's not the man I want anyway. And he'd do it without me (and I'd demand and take half of his assets before he ever stepped outside the door. I do not share).

[_Drifting]

I would totally reject Polygamy because my wife is more important to me than the Prophet, and for that matter God.

And this, my friend, was my point. ;-)

My wife has actually said, jokingly, that if my second bride was a chef she would support Polygamy staright away!

[_Yoda]

My speculation is that the number might be more in the low double digits if the man they were interested in was considered an ideal specimen.

Just out of curiosity, how many of the women in this conversation would consider Kody Brown an ideal specimen. Am I right that two of his wives did not grow up in polygamous culture. His wife Robin was once married to another man in a monogamous relationship. That's at least two women who left a monogamous culture for the polygamous one. Is it because Kody is that attractive?

For the record, even I would not want to live polygamy. I just don't see it as a very happy situation. I always thought I would want to cheat if I married because that's how I'm wired as a man, but now that I'm married, I really don't. If I had children, I doubt I'd even remarry if my wife died. I hate stepmarriages and would always feel like I was bringing a stranger into the family where she didn't belong.

I have watched the show, and I am personally not attracted to Kody Brown. He is decent looking, but I certainly wouldn't label him "hot". LOL

He seems like a nice guy. However, I think he is ignorant about how women feel on a lot of things, even though he is married to 3 of them. This is probably simply the result of him being male. LOL

I wouldn't consider living polygamy for my husband, who I am attracted to...let alone Kody Brown!

[_Yoda]

I think the percentage of 1st wife members would rapidly decline as soon as they realized that their financial support was cut in half, their children were only going to spend half their normal time with their father, and they'd only have half the man's emotional output.

I can tell you this: if my husband wanted to follow the prophet in this, then he'd follow the prophet. I'd encourage him to. Because if he wanted to follow the prophet, then he's not the man I want anyway. And he'd do it without me (and I'd demand and take half of his assets before he ever stepped outside the door. I do not share).

Harmony, from everything you have said about your husband, I very much doubt that you would have anything to worry about. Do you actually think that he would follow the prophet in that type of situation?

[_Zelder]

I am guessing that BC would be willing to make that type of sacrifice. ;-)

ETA---In all seriousness, BC, what if your wife was adimately against plural marriage? Would you still do it?

If his wife was against plural marriage then he has no options. He can't. In order for a man to take a second, the first has to give her consent. (D&C 132:61)

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; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

Verse 64 says that if the wife does not accept she will be destroyed but that is only if her husband is the one holding the keys of this (sealing) power a.k.a. the president of the church. So only the prophet has the power to take a second wife despite his first wife's rejection. everyone else has to get permission.

[_Zelder]

My question is for the women, if another man wanted to be your husband and the first gave his consent would you do it?

I don't think it's an unrealistic question. A third of the women Joseph Smith married had living husbands. Section 132:41 suggests indirectly that a woman in the covenant who has been appointed by "the holy anointing" can be with another man and it's not adultery.

Add to that the reality that the church now allows all deceased women to be sealed to all husbands to whom they were ever married (possible polyandry in heaven?).

Add to that the reality that a lof of men (to my surpise) actually like sharing their wives with other men.

Okay, so would you be interested? You now get double the income, you get more attention (if you want that), and there is no added responsibility.

[_Yoda]

My question is for the women, if another man wanted to be your husband and the first gave his consent would you do it?

I don't think it's an unrealistic question. A third of the women Joseph Smith married had living husbands. Section 132:41 suggests indirectly that a woman in the covenant who has been appointed by "the holy anointing" can be with another man and it's not adultery.

Add to that the reality that the church now allows all deceased women to be sealed to all husbands to whom they were ever married (possible polyandry in heaven?).

Add to that the reality that a lof of men (to my surpise) actually like sharing their wives with other men.

Okay, so would you be interested? You now get double the income, you get more attention (if you want that), and there is no added responsibility.

For me, I think that my answer would be very similar to Drifting's. Yes, I see the appeal from a base desire perspective. However, I love my husband, and I would never do anything like that to hurt him. Even if he were to give permission, I know him well enough to know that if I actually did it, he would be incredibly hurt. I couldn't do that to him, knowing that he would spend eternity in that kind of turmoil. So, no, I wouldn't do it.

[_Yoda]

I am guessing that BC would be willing to make that type of sacrifice. ;-)

ETA---In all seriousness, BC, what if your wife was adimately against plural marriage? Would you still do it?

If his wife was against plural marriage then he has no options. He can't. In order for a man to take a second, the first has to give her consent. (D&C 132:61)

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; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

Verse 64 says that if the wife does not accept she will be destroyed but that is only if her husband is the one holding the keys of this (sealing) power a.k.a. the president of the church. So only the prophet has the power to take a second wife despite his first wife's rejection. everyone else has to get permission.

This is very interesting to me. I have never really read that verse with that kind of perspective. One of the reasons that I felt that section 132 was not honestly from God is because of how much it conflicts with God's message in Jacob 2. And when God plainly says that Emma will be destroyed if she does not accept all of Joseph's other wives...I just assumed that this was a message to all women. I didn't associate it with the fact that Emma was in a unique position as the prophet's wife. Thank you for pointing that out.

It still doesn't change my mind about section 132, but it does give more food for thought.

[_Yoda]

This is a great thread, and I really appreciate everyone's thoughtful contributions.

Here is a basic summary of my views regarding polygamy:

I believe that polygamy was part of the social norm of biblical times, and tolerated by the Lord. I don't feel that plural marriage is the ultimate type of union. We have doctrinal documentation that it is not a requirement for the Celestial kingdom. Eternal marriage through the temple covenant is required...not plural marriage. If you look at the examples of those who truly attempted to live it righteously, you can see that there was a tremendous amount of heartache and marital strife. How could a loving Heavenly Father actually want that for his children? If you read Jacob 2 in its entirety, it is clear to me that he does NOT want that for his children. Section 132 and Jacob 2 are such polar opposites. That is what I have a really hard time with. Yes, I know that we are suppose to rely on the most modern revelation...that the more modern revelation Trump's the old. However, we are talking about a total turn-around from the most correct book on earth...the very keystone of our religion! I just can't fathom Heavenly Father speaking to Emma in that manner after everything she had sacrificed for the gospel, and for Joseph.

Please don't misunderstand me. I have a great amount of respect and admiration for those women who DID live plural marriage. And, I also believe that those who want to continue to live together in plural marriage as a family unit will be able to do so based on their sealing. I simply don't believe that plural marriage was meant to be the ultimate goal.

And I also don't feel that plural marriage needed to be reinstated during the early days of the Church.

[_Zelder]

I think a society that believes that polygyny is the only acceptable form of non-monogamy is going to inevitably see plenty of heartache. Men an women are equals and need to be treated as equals in marriage otherwise there is going to be discontent. If you open the door to all forms a non-monogamy then all the problems with a strictly polygynous society dissappear.


I view plural marriage as an extension of monogamy. What is the difference between fornication and righteous sex within marriage? A covenant. What difference does a covenant make? Well the man and woman become a mini-united order. We share all things in common. Her problems are my problems, her happiness is my happiness, my money is her money and we stick together forever becausue that's love. The sex is a big part of what binds us together.

Plural marriage the way Joseph Smith appeared to have been doing it would just expand that united order family unit to be able to include lots of people for more support, more divesity, more wealth sharing and more sexual options. In reality, this is what most people want and if done property could be extremely fullfilling.