Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 100
Posts: 968

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by FrankOne »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 24th, 2022, 7:45 am

Has “righteousness” ever been the glue that held society together?

Historically , it's been agreement and fear. (see exception further below). People have no idea what love means. Love today is attachment . Perhaps the love of a mother for a child would be a near exception, but that again is more towards attachment than unconditional love. Unconditional love has no conditions.

People live their lives completely under conditions.

Agreement is where everyone finds strength in a common belief. That belief could be patriotism or religion. On a marriage scale, it is the agreement of "I'll give you this, if you give me that". When either party of a marriage ceases to "be" or "do" what the other wants, divorce is readily available for those violations of agreement. All problems in marriage stem from " A conflict of desires".

The exception that I mentioned above applies to the extremely few people which are translated. When a person is translated, the animal instinct is gone. The woman's fears and the man's drives. Everything works without conflict. Everyone desires the exact same thing in the exact same way. There are no debates, the natural man is GONE.

I've met only one person in my life that was close to this state of translation and these don't act or think like anyone else but the person mentioned was still in "the natural man" with frailties.

Back to the idea of what holds groups together and applying it to the City of Enoch, very few understand that the process of translation is painful. Why? Because letting go of all that you value as a natural man is painful. All your world is based in the natural desires. Your attachments to your job, what others think of you, your ideas of judgment of others, your fixed conclusions on doctrines that you argue about, These all have to go. When you realize that you know NOTHING at all, then you've begun.

So, what group would endeavor to be stripped of the natural man? Your precious world. Your precious. Everyone seeks comfort and this is the exact opposite path away from the process of translation.

A person could make the attempt to correlate the risen state with the fallen state and use utopian speech but.....there is no correlation. As written, the natural man is an enemy to God . The wages of sin is death. The good news is that the natural man is not us. (good news = gospel)

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7209
Contact:

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by LDS Watchman »

FrankOne wrote: September 24th, 2022, 12:11 pm
Atticus wrote: September 24th, 2022, 1:10 am
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 23rd, 2022, 5:20 pm Wow, I don't know if it's actually loco, but this thread has been going crazy, and my mailbox has completely blown-up, especially the last couple days. There is no question that the discussion is definitely starting to hit some serious nerves.

Because obviously some people are still really uncomfortable actually posting here, in this thread, and actually having their username be associated with it, I am going to anonymously share a couple more thoughts that have been shared with me.
I can't hardly believe the timing of this thread. I have been experiencing all of these exact issues for years, mostly just suffering in silence. Finally, I decided I would attempt to really have a serious talk with my wife about it. Not only is she not interested in sex, I actually also want to have more kids, and she’s absolutely not interested in that. At this point she doesn’t want to do anything that might risk changing her figure – which she works real hard to maintain, but certainly not for my benefit. So what’s going on? Anyway, because I’m a very frustrated, but proactive, problem-solving guy, I decided I would just go ahead and try to talk to her about it, and see if we couldn’t come up with a solution to help solve problem. And it’s true, one of my ideas was another wife, that might have more interest in sex, as well as in having more kids. Since none of our other discussions went anywhere, I did eventually bring this up with her, and my wife completely blew a gasket, called me a total psychopath, and just for mentioning it and trying to talk about it, she said she was going to divorce me, and she told all of our kids and all of her family, and our bishop that she was divorcing me, and why. This wasn't just in the heat of the moment. She repeatedly told me that she was divorcing me, and started getting her ducks in a row to do that. At that point, I threw my hands in the air, and said, fine, if that’s what you want to do, I’m not going to try to stop you. I’m not really that interested in going the rest of my life without sex anyway, so I thought, okay, has zero interest in actually trying to solve the problem, then she could just make it go away by getting a divorce. Once she started heading seriously down that path, then I thought okay, then I just as well start making other plans, and figure out what I want to do, so that's what I started to do. And to be completely honest, by that point I was actually starting to feel quite relieved, and started to feel some hope for the future. Then she did a 180 and suddenly came back and said that she was having second thoughts, and now wonders if we can’t patch it all back up again, as long as I never mention polygamy, other women, or bring up sex, again, ever. Literally, what she said was that if I am willing to completely give up any hope of having sex again for the rest of life, she might think about taking me back. What am I supposed to do with that?
And, here's another:
Here’s my problem, I can’t lead my wife. I don’t understand it. In the world of men and business, and the church, I am a leader. I have no problem leading. And I can lead other women, but just not my wife. It has been a 20+ year power struggle over just about everything, but especially money. And of course all of this has serious consequences in the bedroom, where nothing has happened for years. I don’t get it. I provide well for my wife and my family, but my wife refuses to let me lead. She wants to second guess and control everything I want to do to the point that it just isn’t even worth trying to talk about. Which means we can’t really talk about just about anything, especially including sex. Like others have mentioned, as far as she is concerned, that is my problem. What do I do? This is really getting old, and I have no desire to live the rest of my life like this.
So obviously, these aren't just isolated issues or problems. It's real. And I can't imagine that we're even beginning to scratch the tip of the iceberg, but the primary preferred response seems to be to just ignore it, and apparently hope that it will simply blow over and go away.

At this point, based on my life experiences and observations up to this point, I'm going to provide a few observations of my own. As has been stated and/or acknowledged multiple times now, there is a huge tug of war going on between nature and nurture in this whole equation. A man's God-given nature is to want to have sex. As has been observed, that is the case with males of almost all species. For whatever reason, that is they way God created them -- including human males. As my cousin Tmac has observed, that is reality. The other reality is that based on a human female's evolutionary biology, by nature, she wants to be able to control all of this for her benefit and for the benefit of her own offspring. It is that female nature that has been the driving force in developing the societal Nurture that has sought to "domesticate" human males and persuade them to settle down with one female and make a family. And I will be the first to acknowledge that can and does work -- as long as the glue holds. And, like it or not, sex is the primary glue. It is the glue that holds marriages, families and society together. Like it or not, that is reality. That is a self-evident truth. In reality, sex is the most important component in the whole equation. It is the thing that can make or break a marriage, a family, or a society. So when the glue fails, things start to fall apart. Marriages, families and societies fall apart. That too, is reality.

Having said all of that, believe it or not, I actually do agree with Atticus and Sarah, that masturbation can be "sinful." In a perfect, ideal world, it would not happen at all. But, of all the things we do in life, both intentionally and unintentionally, how many of them are actually sinful? Is it more sinful for either a man or a woman to pleasure themself privately than to completely sexualize themself publically? Between masturbation and withholding oneself from one's spouse, which stands the greater chance of hurting someone else? Among the seven cardinal sins of pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony, and sloth, exactly where does masturbation fit on the scale? Many would say "lust," but what if a man is actually lusting for his wife, or a woman for her husband? Is there anything wrong with that?

Compared to completely ignoring and walking past my little Ecuadorian friend, in a wheelchair, with two broken legs, begging for money on the street, which is actually the greater sin, masturbation? Why? Between back-biting and slandering one's neighbor, and/or treating one's fellowmen like dirt, and masturbation, which is the greater sin? We are all sinners, at so many levels. In the overall equation of all the sins, including both those that actually hurt and harm others, and those that don't, where does masturbation fit into the equation -- especially under the conditions and circumstances we have been discussing here. Does anyone really believe that in the overall scheme of things, the atonement is not capable of covering masturbation, as well as every other possible sin?

Now, here's the thing: Another part of a human male's nature is to be a problem solver. That is why he has the greater gift of reason -- to help solve problems. All kinds of problems. Whatever problems arise in life. Life is full of problems. Marriages are full of problems. Families are full of problems. In most cases, and for the most part, it is up to men to solve most of those problems. That is one of their natural, inherent roles. It is simple reality. Reason is better than emotion at solving problems.

In this discussion, we have identified a serious, genuine problem: When the glue fails, marriages, families, and society crumble. That is a reality. So, men, being the problem-solvers that they are, seek to find a solution, even a solution that holds the possibility of preserving and holding the marriage, the family, and society together. But wives and the Church insist, “Sorry men, but you can’t solve this problem. We’re not going to let you.” It’s not just No, but He!! No!" Wives and the Church insist that regardless of what the scriptures say, and regardless of what the Fathers of the Ancient House of Israel did, you can’t solve this problem by practicing plural marriage and taking another wife. And, no, you can't have more children. And, no, you can’t have more sex. Just lump it. The male sex drive is your problem, you deal with it. But, then the Church also says, no, you can't do that either. You can't deal with it. You can't take care of yourself, without putting yourself on a path to go straight to He!!.

That is the dilemma that we are faced with.

Here's the bottom line: I know that some people seem to thing they have all the answers, but I don't have any answers. The more I learn, the less I know. At this point, all I have is questions, and my list of questions is getting longer by the day. And many of them are fairly deep, existential questions. Why did God design and create things things the way He did? Why?

Why did God give men such a strong sex drive? Why did He make their reproductive life expectancy twice as long as most females? Why?

What is God's greatest purpose? Really, what is God's greatest purpose? Is it to see that all His spirit children have an opportunity to experience mortality, and see if they can have a shot at also experiencing immortality and eternal life?

Where and how does the male sex drive fit into that whole equation? Obviously, it is more important that most people are willing to acknowledge, but who pretends to have the answers? I know I don't. But who does? Church leadership? Is the Church a problem solver? What is the Church doing to solve this problem? What are women doing to to solve the problem? Who has the only real skin in the game, incentive, and actual responsibility to solve the problem? The reality is, although this issue — the male sex drive — is actually the elephant in the room that everyone tries to ignore and pretend doesn’t exist, neither women nor the Church have any real incentive to actually address the issue. Women and the Church (that societal nurture that I keep referring to) consider the male sex drive to be a weakness. Instead of it being a God-given gift, and a strength, they consider it to be a weakness that must be overcome. They just want to try to ignore the issue and have it go away, because life would be so much simpler in so many ways if the male sex drive would just go away, or at least start winding down at about age 35, and be completely wound down by age 50-55.

But like it or not, we're actually talking here about an obvious issue that threatens marriages, families and society. Who can fix it? How can it be fixed?

Atticus?

Sarah?

Mamabear?

What are your solutions? Let women have more men to share? Is that your best solution?

I'm sure that's plenty to think about for now.

As far as the solution for a wife completely withholding sex from her husband, I don't know the answer there either. I can see where polygamy makes sense as a viable solution, but in light of Jacob 2, one would have to be absolutely certain that God approves of it

Divorcing one's wife and marrying another is an option, but Jesus called this adultery. So that's very problematic.

good points. Polygamy is between a man and God. Outsiders trying to judge these things haven't the faintest idea of what is occurring in another's relationship.

As far as divorce goes, common sense would still have to be employed. If she is simply old, and isn't interested in sex, then I wholly agree with the idea that divorce is an incorrect move. If she withholds sex and also is incurably defiant, resentful and manipulative, then divorce would make perfect sense.
Outsiders do have a right to judge between right and wrong when it comes to polygamy, especially in light of Jacob 2 and D&C 132. God has to command it and it must be done by the proper authority or it's a whoredom. But ultimately God will be the judge.

And I don't think a man is justified in divorcing his wife and marrying another if "she withholds sex and also is incurably defiant, resentful and manipulative." The only grounds for divorce the Savior gave were marital infidelity.

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 100
Posts: 968

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by FrankOne »

Atticus wrote: September 24th, 2022, 1:24 pm
FrankOne wrote: September 24th, 2022, 12:11 pm
Atticus wrote: September 24th, 2022, 1:10 am
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 23rd, 2022, 5:20 pm Wow, I don't know if it's actually loco, but this thread has been going crazy, and my mailbox has completely blown-up, especially the last couple days. There is no question that the discussion is definitely starting to hit some serious nerves.

Because obviously some people are still really uncomfortable actually posting here, in this thread, and actually having their username be associated with it, I am going to anonymously share a couple more thoughts that have been shared with me.


And, here's another:



So obviously, these aren't just isolated issues or problems. It's real. And I can't imagine that we're even beginning to scratch the tip of the iceberg, but the primary preferred response seems to be to just ignore it, and apparently hope that it will simply blow over and go away.

At this point, based on my life experiences and observations up to this point, I'm going to provide a few observations of my own. As has been stated and/or acknowledged multiple times now, there is a huge tug of war going on between nature and nurture in this whole equation. A man's God-given nature is to want to have sex. As has been observed, that is the case with males of almost all species. For whatever reason, that is they way God created them -- including human males. As my cousin Tmac has observed, that is reality. The other reality is that based on a human female's evolutionary biology, by nature, she wants to be able to control all of this for her benefit and for the benefit of her own offspring. It is that female nature that has been the driving force in developing the societal Nurture that has sought to "domesticate" human males and persuade them to settle down with one female and make a family. And I will be the first to acknowledge that can and does work -- as long as the glue holds. And, like it or not, sex is the primary glue. It is the glue that holds marriages, families and society together. Like it or not, that is reality. That is a self-evident truth. In reality, sex is the most important component in the whole equation. It is the thing that can make or break a marriage, a family, or a society. So when the glue fails, things start to fall apart. Marriages, families and societies fall apart. That too, is reality.

Having said all of that, believe it or not, I actually do agree with Atticus and Sarah, that masturbation can be "sinful." In a perfect, ideal world, it would not happen at all. But, of all the things we do in life, both intentionally and unintentionally, how many of them are actually sinful? Is it more sinful for either a man or a woman to pleasure themself privately than to completely sexualize themself publically? Between masturbation and withholding oneself from one's spouse, which stands the greater chance of hurting someone else? Among the seven cardinal sins of pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony, and sloth, exactly where does masturbation fit on the scale? Many would say "lust," but what if a man is actually lusting for his wife, or a woman for her husband? Is there anything wrong with that?

Compared to completely ignoring and walking past my little Ecuadorian friend, in a wheelchair, with two broken legs, begging for money on the street, which is actually the greater sin, masturbation? Why? Between back-biting and slandering one's neighbor, and/or treating one's fellowmen like dirt, and masturbation, which is the greater sin? We are all sinners, at so many levels. In the overall equation of all the sins, including both those that actually hurt and harm others, and those that don't, where does masturbation fit into the equation -- especially under the conditions and circumstances we have been discussing here. Does anyone really believe that in the overall scheme of things, the atonement is not capable of covering masturbation, as well as every other possible sin?

Now, here's the thing: Another part of a human male's nature is to be a problem solver. That is why he has the greater gift of reason -- to help solve problems. All kinds of problems. Whatever problems arise in life. Life is full of problems. Marriages are full of problems. Families are full of problems. In most cases, and for the most part, it is up to men to solve most of those problems. That is one of their natural, inherent roles. It is simple reality. Reason is better than emotion at solving problems.

In this discussion, we have identified a serious, genuine problem: When the glue fails, marriages, families, and society crumble. That is a reality. So, men, being the problem-solvers that they are, seek to find a solution, even a solution that holds the possibility of preserving and holding the marriage, the family, and society together. But wives and the Church insist, “Sorry men, but you can’t solve this problem. We’re not going to let you.” It’s not just No, but He!! No!" Wives and the Church insist that regardless of what the scriptures say, and regardless of what the Fathers of the Ancient House of Israel did, you can’t solve this problem by practicing plural marriage and taking another wife. And, no, you can't have more children. And, no, you can’t have more sex. Just lump it. The male sex drive is your problem, you deal with it. But, then the Church also says, no, you can't do that either. You can't deal with it. You can't take care of yourself, without putting yourself on a path to go straight to He!!.

That is the dilemma that we are faced with.

Here's the bottom line: I know that some people seem to thing they have all the answers, but I don't have any answers. The more I learn, the less I know. At this point, all I have is questions, and my list of questions is getting longer by the day. And many of them are fairly deep, existential questions. Why did God design and create things things the way He did? Why?

Why did God give men such a strong sex drive? Why did He make their reproductive life expectancy twice as long as most females? Why?

What is God's greatest purpose? Really, what is God's greatest purpose? Is it to see that all His spirit children have an opportunity to experience mortality, and see if they can have a shot at also experiencing immortality and eternal life?

Where and how does the male sex drive fit into that whole equation? Obviously, it is more important that most people are willing to acknowledge, but who pretends to have the answers? I know I don't. But who does? Church leadership? Is the Church a problem solver? What is the Church doing to solve this problem? What are women doing to to solve the problem? Who has the only real skin in the game, incentive, and actual responsibility to solve the problem? The reality is, although this issue — the male sex drive — is actually the elephant in the room that everyone tries to ignore and pretend doesn’t exist, neither women nor the Church have any real incentive to actually address the issue. Women and the Church (that societal nurture that I keep referring to) consider the male sex drive to be a weakness. Instead of it being a God-given gift, and a strength, they consider it to be a weakness that must be overcome. They just want to try to ignore the issue and have it go away, because life would be so much simpler in so many ways if the male sex drive would just go away, or at least start winding down at about age 35, and be completely wound down by age 50-55.

But like it or not, we're actually talking here about an obvious issue that threatens marriages, families and society. Who can fix it? How can it be fixed?

Atticus?

Sarah?

Mamabear?

What are your solutions? Let women have more men to share? Is that your best solution?

I'm sure that's plenty to think about for now.

As far as the solution for a wife completely withholding sex from her husband, I don't know the answer there either. I can see where polygamy makes sense as a viable solution, but in light of Jacob 2, one would have to be absolutely certain that God approves of it

Divorcing one's wife and marrying another is an option, but Jesus called this adultery. So that's very problematic.

good points. Polygamy is between a man and God. Outsiders trying to judge these things haven't the faintest idea of what is occurring in another's relationship.

As far as divorce goes, common sense would still have to be employed. If she is simply old, and isn't interested in sex, then I wholly agree with the idea that divorce is an incorrect move. If she withholds sex and also is incurably defiant, resentful and manipulative, then divorce would make perfect sense.
Outsiders do have a right to judge between right and wrong when it comes to polygamy,
Enjoy

hyloglyph
captain of 100
Posts: 926

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by hyloglyph »

It is my belief!

That there is another option yet

Beyond those 5

I think there is more

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 100
Posts: 968

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by FrankOne »

hyloglyph wrote: September 24th, 2022, 4:39 pm It is my belief!

That there is another option yet

Beyond those 5

I think there is more
I must be 4' tall. lol

hyloglyph
captain of 100
Posts: 926

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by hyloglyph »

FrankOne wrote: September 24th, 2022, 5:58 pm
hyloglyph wrote: September 24th, 2022, 4:39 pm It is my belief!

That there is another option yet

Beyond those 5

I think there is more
I must be 4' tall. lol
Nah you’re not I’m just replying to the meat of Magnus’ previous series of posts where he outlined 5 options for a man who’s wife turned frigid.

I think there is at least one other option but I have to figure out how to explain it

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 184

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

Do you think the city of Zion was held together by sex or because the people were of one heart and one mind?
I can absolutely guarantee that without any sex there would have never been "one heart and one mind." Guaranteed.
I think there is at least one other option but I have to figure out how to explain it
I, for one, am all ears!

Atrasado
captain of 100
Posts: 416

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Atrasado »

I have sat on the church court of a man whose wife told him after the second child that that was the last time they would have sex. He was excommunicated for adultery. I told the other men there that I thought she should have been excommunicated as well.

Because we don't have the right as spouses to declare impure what the Lord declared pure. We don't have the right to deny the Lord's teaching that spouses become one flesh. I believe defrauding a spouse from the marital intimacy that is implied in the marriage covenant is WRONG and just as bad a sin, in most instances as adultery.

If one of the spouses has a medical issue, then patience is needed. But if they take no action to resolve their medical issue they are betraying their covenants and defrauding their spouse.

If abuse is happening, then divorce generally should take place and I can't imagine intimacy reasonably happening then.

But a spouse that goes into a marriage thinking that they will over a long period of time withhold intimacy or who decides that later on because they feel like it is a despicable person. That's all. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's true. Only repentance and faith in the Lord can save them.
Last edited by Atrasado on September 24th, 2022, 7:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Jonesy
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1387
Contact:

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Jonesy »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 24th, 2022, 6:45 pm I can absolutely guarantee that without any sex there would have never been "one heart and one mind." Guaranteed.
I can also guarantee that IF that is the case, it was because they put righteousness above sex. Thus why I think it’s imperative to properly frame this discussion in that context rather than expecting sex to be the glue.

User avatar
tmac
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2530
Location: Reality

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by tmac »

Jonesy wrote: September 24th, 2022, 7:07 pm
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 24th, 2022, 6:45 pm I can absolutely guarantee that without any sex there would have never been "one heart and one mind." Guaranteed.
I can also guarantee that IF that is the case, it was because they put righteousness above sex. Thus why I think it’s imperative to properly frame this discussion in that context rather than expecting sex to be the glue.
What I feel like you are misunderstanding and discounting is the biological reality that neither righteousness, nor one heart and one mind can procreate and reproduce children — beings who can be of one heart and one mind, without their parents having been one flesh.

Atrasado has set this up perfectly. A husband and wife will never be of one mind and one heart unless/until they are one flesh. And without that — sex — likewise happening among other similarly situated couples, there will be no children and future generations to be of one heart and one mind. If the parents of the inhabitants of Zion had never had sex and procreated children, who would there have been to do anything else?

What comes first, the chicken or the egg? Clearly, the biological reality is that sex must happen before anything else can happen. Is it really that opaque?

User avatar
Jonesy
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1387
Contact:

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Jonesy »

tmac wrote: September 24th, 2022, 8:30 pm
Jonesy wrote: September 24th, 2022, 7:07 pm
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 24th, 2022, 6:45 pm I can absolutely guarantee that without any sex there would have never been "one heart and one mind." Guaranteed.
I can also guarantee that IF that is the case, it was because they put righteousness above sex. Thus why I think it’s imperative to properly frame this discussion in that context rather than expecting sex to be the glue.
What I feel like you are misunderstanding and discounting is the biological reality that neither righteousness, nor one heart and one mind can procreate and reproduce children — beings who can be of one heart and one mind, without their parents having been one flesh.

Atrasado has set this up perfectly. A husband and wife will never be of one mind and one heart unless/until they are one flesh. And without that — sex — likewise happening among other similarly situated couples, there will be no children and future generations to be of one heart and one mind. If the parents of the inhabitants of Zion had never had sex and procreated children, who would there have been to do anything else?

What comes first, the chicken or the egg? Clearly, the biological reality is that sex must happen before anything else can happen. Is it really that opaque?
I absolutely agree with you.

Glue is something that binds things together. Sex in a marriage is an element and a consummation of that. However, the glue binding that marriage together is righteousness. If righteousness is not a part of marriage, there is no binding together that’s going to last. Obviously that implies both parties. This is an issue of the ages, and it may be partly due that true patriarchy is lost on us or so many other things. Again, in a topsy-turvy society, we can’t just start with sex…

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6337

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Sarah »

Atrasado wrote: September 24th, 2022, 6:58 pm I have sat on the church court of a man whose wife told him after the second child that that was the last time they would have sex. He was excommunicated for adultery. I told the other men there that I thought she should have been excommunicated as well.

Because we don't have the right as spouses to declare impure what the Lord declared pure. We don't have the right to deny the Lord's teaching that spouses become one flesh. I believe defrauding a spouse from the marital intimacy that is implied in the marriage covenant is WRONG and just as bad a sin, in most instances as adultery.

If one of the spouses has a medical issue, then patience is needed. But if they take no action to resolve their medical issue they are betraying their covenants and defrauding their spouse.

If abuse is happening, then divorce generally should take place and I can't imagine intimacy reasonably happening then.

But a spouse that goes into a marriage thinking that they will over a long period of time withhold intimacy or who decides that later on because they feel like it is a despicable person. That's all. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's true. Only repentance and faith in the Lord can save them.
I think a wife should be willing to sacrifice occasionally for her husband. But what people need to understand is that if the wife is not receiving anything that can be appreciated during sex, and not feeling loved from it, it is not making them one flesh. The idea of one flesh should be the sharing of sexual love gifts, emphasis on the love part. If she is not feeling loved, then it is degrading sex and not pure.

Sex should be about expressing love and procreating, not about the wife sacrificing her body to her husband's lustful desires. If it really was about love and not lust, he would put her before himself, because she has the weaker sex drive. He needs to figure it out instead of giving up and looking at other women. What if she had a medical condition that could not be fixed? Some women have severe pain with intercourse that cannot be fixed, so is this about love, or about expectations, and feeling entitled to something from someone who is weaker than you.

Literally becoming one flesh may not happen in this life. It is more important to show charity. It would only be driving a wedge between them to expect a wife to dutifully endure something that makes her feel used or in pain. This is like any other challenge in life or difficult relationship. Instead of giving up, the husband should go to the Lord to get revelation on how to help his wife. It's his responsibility to make physical affection and intimacy a thing of love for her. If she doesn't like touching, he can ask his wife to stimulate him without him touching her. He has no right to touch her body simply for his own pleasure. Him touching her should only be making her happy, or he is touching her out of lust, not love.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6337

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Sarah »

I think it might help men to imagine what it would feel like to be raped, to understand how sex can feel for a wife who doesn't enjoy physical intimacy. Women can more easily relate to rape victims because many of them have felt used for the man's pleasure during sex. So probably most men, unless they have been abused or raped, have no idea what it feels like for someone to use your body for their sexual pleasure.

So here's a scenario to imagine: Pretend that a man breaks into your house while you're asleep, ties you up and tells you that unless you let him do whatever he wants with your body, he will drag your wife and children in the room and torture and kill them before your eyes. You don't have much choice anyway because he has you tied up, but you don't put up a fight and allow him to rape you. Imagine what that would feel like. Now realize that this is a taste of what millions of women have gone through with abusive husbands because of tradition, and what almost every woman can relate to who is sexually active. It's not good to think that a wife has a duty to feel this way week after week for years on end with her husband. It's abusive for a husband to shame and guilt-trip her into having sex with him at her expense.

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 100
Posts: 968

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by FrankOne »

Jonesy wrote: September 24th, 2022, 10:03 pm
tmac wrote: September 24th, 2022, 8:30 pm
Jonesy wrote: September 24th, 2022, 7:07 pm
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 24th, 2022, 6:45 pm I can absolutely guarantee that without any sex there would have never been "one heart and one mind." Guaranteed.
I can also guarantee that IF that is the case, it was because they put righteousness above sex. Thus why I think it’s imperative to properly frame this discussion in that context rather than expecting sex to be the glue.
What I feel like you are misunderstanding and discounting is the biological reality that neither righteousness, nor one heart and one mind can procreate and reproduce children — beings who can be of one heart and one mind, without their parents having been one flesh.

Atrasado has set this up perfectly. A husband and wife will never be of one mind and one heart unless/until they are one flesh. And without that — sex — likewise happening among other similarly situated couples, there will be no children and future generations to be of one heart and one mind. If the parents of the inhabitants of Zion had never had sex and procreated children, who would there have been to do anything else?

What comes first, the chicken or the egg? Clearly, the biological reality is that sex must happen before anything else can happen. Is it really that opaque?
I absolutely agree with you.

Glue is something that binds things together. Sex in a marriage is an element and a consummation of that. However, the glue binding that marriage together is righteousness. If righteousness is not a part of marriage, there is no binding together that’s going to last. Obviously that implies both parties. This is an issue of the ages, and it may be partly due that true patriarchy is lost on us or so many other things. Again, in a topsy-turvy society, we can’t just start with sex…
good points, I agree as well. Now, a definition of terms would be necessary in order to understand just how complex this gets. Define righteousness. Righteous comes down to a matter of personal conscience and belief. One could say that 'morality' is the fundamental principle, but that would be defined by personal perspective. Even within a single religion, morality is an ambiguous term as is the term 'righteous'. Most would think it means to be obedient to a system of religious law. Each religion from Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism to Christian has a very different view of what that obedience entails. For all intents and purposes, obedience is a very subjective term. Obedience to what?

I would more consider that it isn't righteousness that is a part of the glue of a marriage, but simply all individuals in a relationship, whether it be polygamous our monogamous, adhering to a common moral belief and living in that standard TOGETHER. Just about any relationship is weak if there is not a law, purpose, or divine being which is more important than the relationship itself. It's like having a sail on a boat.

The becoming one in flesh is unambiguous.

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 100
Posts: 968

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by FrankOne »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 24th, 2022, 3:54 am for men over 55, who, according to this reasoning, are now left with the following five options if/when their wife becomes frigid and permanently withholds herself from him: 1) utilize the sinful practice of masturbation to cope, and risk going to He!! for that evil practice; 2) get divorced in order to have a shot at an opportunity for more action, and buy a ticket to He!! for adultery; 3) roll-over, get neutered, and just faithfully serve one’s wife the rest of her frigid days; 4) just pull the plug and commit suicide (which we just had another cousin do — his funeral is today), likewise arguably sealing one’s eternal fate, or; 5) continue to provide for the first wife, take a second wife, and have more children, which will of course be condemned by the Church, and probably the first wife (who would rather have a neutered husband/slave).

This is now the sort of discussion that will definitely compound middle-aged insomnia. But why might a man feel like a victim in the whole bloody conspiracy?

What was God’s divine intention behind all this?
"Do as thou wilt is the whole of the law" (the real law of all creation). Consequence does occur in all action. Prayer and wisdom can prevent some pitfalls, but not all of them. Pain is the catalyst for learning.

In this situation, a man is not a victim unless he refuses to make a choice and in such a case, he is the victim of his own indecision.

User avatar
Jonesy
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1387
Contact:

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Jonesy »

FrankOne wrote: September 24th, 2022, 11:18 pm
Jonesy wrote: September 24th, 2022, 10:03 pm
tmac wrote: September 24th, 2022, 8:30 pm
Jonesy wrote: September 24th, 2022, 7:07 pm

I can also guarantee that IF that is the case, it was because they put righteousness above sex. Thus why I think it’s imperative to properly frame this discussion in that context rather than expecting sex to be the glue.
What I feel like you are misunderstanding and discounting is the biological reality that neither righteousness, nor one heart and one mind can procreate and reproduce children — beings who can be of one heart and one mind, without their parents having been one flesh.

Atrasado has set this up perfectly. A husband and wife will never be of one mind and one heart unless/until they are one flesh. And without that — sex — likewise happening among other similarly situated couples, there will be no children and future generations to be of one heart and one mind. If the parents of the inhabitants of Zion had never had sex and procreated children, who would there have been to do anything else?

What comes first, the chicken or the egg? Clearly, the biological reality is that sex must happen before anything else can happen. Is it really that opaque?
I absolutely agree with you.

Glue is something that binds things together. Sex in a marriage is an element and a consummation of that. However, the glue binding that marriage together is righteousness. If righteousness is not a part of marriage, there is no binding together that’s going to last. Obviously that implies both parties. This is an issue of the ages, and it may be partly due that true patriarchy is lost on us or so many other things. Again, in a topsy-turvy society, we can’t just start with sex…
good points, I agree as well. Now, a definition of terms would be necessary in order to understand just how complex this gets. Define righteousness. Righteous comes down to a matter of personal conscience and belief. One could say that 'morality' is the fundamental principle, but that would be defined by personal perspective. Even within a single religion, morality is an ambiguous term as is the term 'righteous'. Most would think it means to be obedient to a system of religious law. Each religion from Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism to Christian has a very different view of what that obedience entails. For all intents and purposes, obedience is a very subjective term. Obedience to what?

I would more consider that it isn't righteousness that is a part of the glue of a marriage, but simply all individuals in a relationship, whether it be polygamous our monogamous, adhering to a common moral belief and living in that standard TOGETHER. Just about any relationship is weak if there is not a law, purpose, or divine being which is more important than the relationship itself. It's like having a sail on a boat.

The becoming one in flesh is unambiguous.
Well said and I couldn’t have said it better. That’s more of where I hoped the discussion of my original post had gone. “Yeah, of course righteousness is the equation, that’s what we’re trying to figure out, dummy—stop diminishing our conversation“. Oh, okay, great—let’s move on. Instead, sex is being hammered out as the end-all be-all to a good marriage/family/society when that should be self-evidently NOT the case. You’re not going to convince any women of that either, as is also self-evident.

I was actually looking at Numbers chapter 30 in context of this discussion, and what you said fits very well into that. I did use the term “righteousness” purposely so as to set the tone and beginning point of the discussion; but as I said before, I don’t claim to know what that is. I definitely believe it can start with the two individuals coming to an agreement and abiding that law. In fact, there actually seems to be a lot of power given to the husband on “establishing” it or making it “void”. We should also consider that “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”. It’s a hairy situation and should all be done fearing God. Whatever the case, our society is wacked.

bbrown
captain of 100
Posts: 808

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by bbrown »

So here's a scenario to imagine: Pretend that a man breaks into your house while you're asleep, ties you up and tells you that unless you let him do whatever he wants with your body, he will drag your wife and children in the room and torture and kill them before your eyes. You don't have much choice anyway because he has you tied up, but you don't put up a fight and allow him to rape you. Imagine what that would feel like. Now realize that this is a taste of what millions of women have gone through with abusive husbands because of tradition, and what almost every woman can relate to who is sexually active. It's not good to think that a wife has a duty to feel this way week after week for years on end with her husband. It's abusive for a husband to shame and guilt-trip her into having sex with him at her expense.


So you actually think most women feel raped by their husbands? Really? “And what almost every woman can relate to who is sexually active”. That implies that almost every man is a rapist. What an awful outlook. We’re mostly not talking about abusive husbands in this thread but loving husbands but almost all are raping their wives?



As to the situation above where the wife permanently stopped having sex with the husband, she is as guilty as he is. Some of the other scenarios mentioned earlier same thing, the wife who cuts off her husband is as guilty as the errant husband. She is as abusive as any wife beater. Sex is unique to marriage, there should not be sex in any other relationship, if there is none in the marriage it is dead. Heath concerns or physical inability are a bit different, and compromise, accommodation, and improvisation and a lot of patience on both sides is required. Even then many such marriages will fail.

hyloglyph
captain of 100
Posts: 926

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by hyloglyph »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 24th, 2022, 6:45 pm
Do you think the city of Zion was held together by sex or because the people were of one heart and one mind?
I can absolutely guarantee that without any sex there would have never been "one heart and one mind." Guaranteed.
I think there is at least one other option but I have to figure out how to explain it
I, for one, am all ears!

Halfbreed polygamy. Modified monogamy. Or it’s better to not name it probably. It is basically just monogamy with a verbal baggage clause.

So basically it is actually just monogamy. On paper it is just monogamy. And in practice it is just monogamy. But there is a small twist.

You were a judge so you could negotiate the legal hurdles and the church hurdles and the doctrinal hurdles pretty easily.

I’m not saying it is the way to go. Not at all. Not recommending it or saying it’s a good idea. I have ZERO clue about that. Just wanted to add it to the option list.

To some it would be a better option than castration and to others it wouldn’t and to me I can’t say. It would be above my pay grade and experience set to even be able to speculate on it.

But it is an option

hyloglyph
captain of 100
Posts: 926

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by hyloglyph »

Lamanites had good tight relationships at times and they didn’t have righteousness btw the glue to hold a marriage and children is for sure the rolling around for fun part. The lamanites knew how to do that. The children know and feel when the folks like each other’s presence too and it makes them feel relaxed and safe and happy.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 184

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

It is basically just monogamy with a verbal baggage clause
“Baggage clause”? Look Hyloglyph, thanks, but you’re going to have to do a little better job of explaining it than that, and I know you can. If we’re going to have to “negotiate legal hurdles, church hurdles, and doctrinal hurdles,” we better clearly define the terms a little better. Please help me out.

Otherwise, believe it or not, I’m actually going to back-up and modify my entire position a little bit, but in a very important way.

Before doing that, I am just going to acknowledge that I am feeling particularly sensitive about all this right now, this very early “morning after.” For one thing, we just buried our cousin under very sad circumstances that this whole discussion undoubtedly factors so heavily into. His father, our uncle, had been married five times. What does that tell you? Our cousin had his own frustration with women, and they with him, but it’s all very sad. And then there are all the messages I’ve been getting. Some of them are literally heartbreaking. All these big tough guys. Men’s men, with all their big tough male sex drive, and big tough male egos, but many of them are suffering, genuinely suffering, in silence, and don’t know what to do about it. And then, believe it or not, this whole discussion has got me asking a lot of people, including friends and family members, some real hard and uncomfortable personal questions, including about their personal lives. But the one thing it has completely confirmed for me is that there is a serious issue. And then, in addition to all that, my good wife, with her female intuition, etc., cut through a bunch of baggage and crap last night, and in Sarah’s words, gave me a very special and indeed timely gift. I realize that in Mamabear’s words, this may be TMI, but my wife told me that I probably need to plan on putting that at least that much, if not more effort into seducing her every single time, And, if once in a while I end up striking out, that is one of those self evident realities of life. It’s simply not possible to hit a homer every time you step up to the plate. But you can’t give up, and you’ve got to keep stepping up. Glue is good!

But, here’s the modification: It’s not hardly fair or accurate to simply say that “sex is the glue that holds it all together.” But what I think it is fair and accurate to say is that “Love is the glue that holds it all together.” And to be effective, that love must include at least a couple important ingredients, including both effective communication, satisfying sex, AND AFFECTION. We might actually call it “affectionate, communicative sex.” It’s true, it’s not just sex. But sex is a critical component of it. And as several other people have confirmed with very valuable contributions, to the extent it is physically and medically possible, sex needs to be part of the equation. Without caring, loving, affectionate sex, there really isn’t that much point of being married. So here is the modified statement: “Caring, loving, affectionate sex is the glue.” It is the glue that holds marriages, families, and society together. Without it, they crumble and fall apart. That is reality.

I’m not going to go with “righteousness,” or “worthiness,” or any of those wish-washy, vague, ambiguous and relative terms that don’t really mean anything. I live in one of the most pretentious, self-righteous wards in the Church. They literally think they are the next city of Enoch. Testimony meeting is nauseating. But if there is any actual, effective glue here or anywhere, it is not the so-called “righteousness.” It would be caring, loving, affectionate sex, just like is anywhere else, that isn’t quite as self-righteous.

Caring, loving, affectionate sex is what makes good babies, and happy, well-adjusted children. And, to the extent it is still possible, babies are and should be a big part of the whole “righteous” equation, because when a husband and wife are having plenty of caring, loving, affectionate, satisfying sex, they will beam. They will be happy, and there will be a spirit and an aura about them. And their children will beam too. Take that out of the equation, and it will be a completely different aura. A completely different spirit. A cold, frigid, withholding wife will have a completely different spirit, aura, and demeanor than an affectionate “attentive” wife. And same with the husband. A domineering, tyrannical husband will have a different aura, and so will the whole family. If the right sexual chemistry isn’t there between the husband and wife (and it often isn’t), it will be discernible to people with a real gift of discernment.

Now, finally, I want to say that every single person who has participated in this discussion has had an influence on my thinking. There was plenty of stuff I didn’t really want to hear, but I heard it. I listened, and it has influenced my thinking. Mamabear, I did hear you, and it made a difference. What would Jesus do? It is a great question. Atticus, I know we’ve locked horns a little bit, but you have forced me to think, and to re-examine some of my positions. It wasn’t what I wanted to hear, or how I wanted to hear it said, but it needed to be said. Thank you. Sarah, what can I say? You’ve worn me down. I have changed my definition of glue because of you. It is now “Caring, loving, affectionate, SATISFYING SEX is the Glue.” Thank you.

In my mind, that new definition has such a fulfilling sound to it. Whether it is fully “righteous” or not, Jonesy, it still has a very fulfilling ring to it. Until I am of one heart and one mind, in the meantime, I still want to be one flesh.

Frank, Hyloglygh, and Sir H, the discussion would have been a lot more single dimensional, and would have really struggled without you and your unique, thought-provoking perspectives.

I know there are many watching this whole ongoing discussion from the sidelines, but thanks to everyone who has been brave enough to step up and engage. This isn’t and hasn’t been a standard polygamy thread. It hasn’t been easy, but this thread ended up going epic. It's starting to rival the railroad thread, which I appreciate because Brother Faith (AGF) has been one of my inspirations. But I hope to finish something that he did not. And in the process, some of you deserve metals of valor.

Personally, I have no problem with plural marriage. As I’ve explained elsewhere, I have discovered that in my heart I am indeed a closet Fundamentalist, and probably have been my whole life. In fact, crazy as it sounds, even at my age, I would actually still like to have more children. And, I guess it’s kind of like finally acknowledging and admitting that you’re an alcoholic. But the reality is, I would be completely open to a Phase 2 Family. And, although I do sincerely care about what God thinks, I have reached a point that I personally don’t really care what the Church thinks or says on this issue. And I no longer see any real connection between the two, which means that I am not willing to just assume that at this point the modern Church and its leadership even know, let alone express, the mind and will of God. As far as I am concerned the Church is now so far out in left field compared to the Church I grew up in that what the Church thinks is no longer the tail that wags the dog with me.

But, I do also sincerely care about what my wife thinks. And, not surprisingly, my wife has no interest in plural marriage. This could be a huge source of conflict, and drive a serious wedge between us. And that is how the discussion started. But, like I’ve always told her, “I wouldn’t want to do it without you — I won’t do it without you.” If she was on board, I would be very open-minded to trying plural marriage -- I would like more kids! But since she’s not, I'm just a recovering closet fundamentalist. But at least I’m willing to acknowledge that and try to deal with it.

So, we’re working on an understanding — even though we can't have any more kids — as long as we can figure out a way for there still to be plenty of glue, it can still work. That is our compromise. But, without glue there is a problem, and we just as well acknowledge that so that we can try to do something about it.

So, from my perspective, the bottom line, especially with the new definition is that: God wants us to have glue. We need to have glue. Glue is what binds and holds marriages, families, and societies together. Long live glue! And rue the day that this is no longer the case.

God bless, and Happy Sabbath!
Last edited by Mangus MacLeod on September 25th, 2022, 5:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6337

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Sarah »

bbrown wrote: September 25th, 2022, 12:15 am So here's a scenario to imagine: Pretend that a man breaks into your house while you're asleep, ties you up and tells you that unless you let him do whatever he wants with your body, he will drag your wife and children in the room and torture and kill them before your eyes. You don't have much choice anyway because he has you tied up, but you don't put up a fight and allow him to rape you. Imagine what that would feel like. Now realize that this is a taste of what millions of women have gone through with abusive husbands because of tradition, and what almost every woman can relate to who is sexually active. It's not good to think that a wife has a duty to feel this way week after week for years on end with her husband. It's abusive for a husband to shame and guilt-trip her into having sex with him at her expense.


So you actually think most women feel raped by their husbands? Really? “And what almost every woman can relate to who is sexually active”. That implies that almost every man is a rapist. What an awful outlook. We’re mostly not talking about abusive husbands in this thread but loving husbands but almost all are raping their wives?



As to the situation above where the wife permanently stopped having sex with the husband, she is as guilty as he is. Some of the other scenarios mentioned earlier same thing, the wife who cuts off her husband is as guilty as the errant husband. She is as abusive as any wife beater. Sex is unique to marriage, there should not be sex in any other relationship, if there is none in the marriage it is dead. Heath concerns or physical inability are a bit different, and compromise, accommodation, and improvisation and a lot of patience on both sides is required. Even then many such marriages will fail.
No I didn't say that most women feel raped by their husbands. I said most women understand what it feels like to have a man or husband use her body to fulfill lustful desires, and this can happen when she is not into it as much as he is, and he is letting his passions get ahead of his wife, trying to stimulate her body for his own satisfaction when she is not desiring all of it yet. He has to put her first in order for both of them to have fulfillment.

I gave an example of a rape to help you imagine what it might feel like to have another person use your body to fulfill their lusts, so you can understand and have compassion on how many women feel to have their naked body used by another when they are not feeling the same enjoyment. It wouldn't be to that extreme, but how am I supposed to get you to relate to how a wife feels when you've never been a woman? You're simply dismissing and invalidating feelings that a wife can't help feeling.

And I don't think she is being abusive if she refuses. She is setting some boundaries on her receiving something the husband wants to force her to receive. And I agree that the couple needs to improvise, and I gave a suggestion on how they could do that. Indeed, the husband needs to have patience with his wife and the wife needs to have patience with him if he is trying to put her first, for that is the only way both can enjoy sex is if he puts her sexual needs first.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6337

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Sarah »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 25th, 2022, 5:37 am
It is basically just monogamy with a verbal baggage clause
“Baggage clause”? Look Hyloglyph, thanks, but you’re going to have to do a little better job of explaining it than that, and I know you can. If we’re going to have to “negotiate legal hurdles, church hurdles, and doctrinal hurdles,” we better clearly define the terms a little better. Please help me out.

Otherwise, believe it or not, I’m actually going to back-up and modify my entire position a little bit, but in a very important way.

Before doing that, I am just going to acknowledge that I am feeling particularly sensitive about all this right now, this very early “morning after.” For one thing, we just buried our cousin under very sad circumstances that this whole discussion undoubtedly factors so heavily into. His father, our uncle, had been married five times. What does that tell you? Our cousin had his own frustration with women, and they with him, but it’s all very sad. And then there are all the messages Ive been getting. Some of them are literally heartbreaking. All these big tough guys. Mens men, with all their big tough male sex drive, but many of them are suffering, genuinely suffering, in silence, and don’t know what to do about it. And then, believe it or not, this whole discussion has got me asking a lot of people, including friends and family members, some real uncomfortable personal questions. But the one thing it has completely confirmed for me is that there is a serious issue. And then, in addition to all that, my good wife, with her female intuition, etc., cut through a bunch of baggage and crap last night, and in Sarah’s words, gave me a very special and indeed timely gift. I realize that in Mamabear’s words, this may be TMI, but my wife told me that I probably need to plan on putting that much effort into seducing her every single time, And, if once in a while I strike out, that is one of those self evident realities of life. It’s simply not possible to hit a homer every time you step up to the plate. But you can’t give up, and you’ve got to keep stepping up. Glue is good.

But, here’s the modification: It’s not hardly fair or accurate to say that “sex is the glue that holds it all together.” But what I think it is fair and accurate to say is that Love is the glue that holds it all together. And to be effective, that love must include at least a couple important ingredients, including both effective communication, satisfying sex, AND AFFECTION. We might actually call it “affectionate, communicative sex.” It’s true, it’s not just sex. But sex is a critical component of it. And as several other people have confirmed with very valuable contributions, to the extent it is physically and medically possible, sex needs to be part of the equation. Without caring, loving, affectionate sex, there really isn’t that much point of being married. So here is the modified statement: Caring, loving, affectionate sex is the glue. It is the glue that holds marriages, families, and society together. Without it, they crumble and fall apart. That is reality.

I’m not going to go with “righteousness,” or “worthiness,” or any of those wish-washy, vague and relative terms that don’t really mean anything. I live in one of the most pretentious, self-righteous wards in the Church. They literally think they are the next city of Enoch. Testimony meeting is literally nauseating. But if there is any actual, effective glue, it is not the so-called “righteousness.” It would be caring, loving, affectionate sex, just like is anywhere else, that isn’t quite as self-righteous.

Caring, loving, affectionate sex is what makes good babies, and, to the extent it is still possible, babies are and should be a big part of the whole “righteous” equation, because when a husband and wife are having plenty of caring, loving, affectionate, satisfying sex, they will beam. They will be happy, and there will be a spirit and an aura about them. And their children will beam too. Take that out of the equation, and it will be a completely different aura. A completely different spirit. A cold, frigid, withholding wife will have a completely different spirit, aura, and demeanor than an affectionate “attentive” wife. And same with the husband. A domineering, tyrannical husband will have a different aura, and so will the whole family. If the right sexual chemistry isn’t there between the husband and wife (and it often isn’t), it will be discernible to people with a real gift of discernment.

Now, finally, I want to say that every single person who has participated in this discussion has had an influence on my thinking. There was plenty of stuff I didn’t really want to hear, but I heard it. I listened, and it has influenced my thinking. Mamabear, I did hear you, and it made a difference. What would Jesus do? It is a great question. Atticus, I know we’ve locked horns a little bit, but you have forced me to think, and to re-examine some of my positions. It wasn’t what I wanted to hear, or how I wanted to hear it said, but it needed to be said. Thank you. Sarah, what can I say? You’ve worn me down. I have changed my definition of glue because of you. It is now “Caring, loving, affectionate, SATISFYING SEX is the Glue.” Thank you.

In my mind, that new definition has such a fulfilling sound to it. Whether it is fully “righteous” or not, Jonesy, it still has a very fulfilling ring to it. Until I am of one heart and one mind, in the meantime, I still want to be one flesh.

Frank and Hyloglygh, the discussion would have been a lot more single dimensional, and would have really struggled without you and your unique, thought-provoking perspectives.

I know there are many watching this whole ongoing discussion from the sidelines, but thanks to everyone who has been brave enough to step up and engage. This isn’t and hasn’t been a standard polygamy thread. It hasn’t been easy, but this thread ended up going epic. It's starting to rival the railroad thread, which I appreciate because Brother Faith (AGF) has been one of my inspirations. But I hope to finish something that he did not. And in the process, some of you deserve metals of valor.

Personally, I have no problem with plural marriage. As I’ve explained elsewhere, I have discovered that I am indeed a closet Fundamentalist. In fact, crazy as it sounds, I would like to actually have more children. I guess it’s kind of like finally acknowledging and admitting that you’re an alcoholic. But, not surprisingly, my wife has no interest in plural marriage. This could be a huge source of conflict, and drive a serious wedge between us. And it that is how the discussion started. But, like I’ve always told her, “I wouldn’t want to do it without you — I won’t do it without you.” If she was on board, I would be very open-minded to trying plural marriage -- I would like more kids! But since she’s not, I'm just a recovering closet fundamentalist..

And, we’re working on an understanding — even though we can't have any more kids, as long as there is plenty of glue, it won’t be an issue. That is our compromise.

But, here’s the bottom line, especially with the new definition: God wants us to have glue. We need to have glue. Glue is what binds and holds marriages, families, and societies together. Long live glue! And rue the day that this is no longer the case.

God bless, and Happy Sabbath!
So happy to hear you had a wonderful night with your wife 😊 Happy Sabbath to you too 😉

hyloglyph
captain of 100
Posts: 926

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by hyloglyph »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 25th, 2022, 5:37 am
It is basically just monogamy with a verbal baggage clause
“Baggage clause”? Look Hyloglyph, thanks, but you’re going to have to do a little better job of explaining it than that, and I know you can. If we’re going to have to “negotiate legal hurdles, church hurdles, and doctrinal hurdles,” we better clearly define the terms a little better. Please help me out.

Otherwise, believe it or not, I’m actually going to back-up and modify my entire position a little bit, but in a very important way.

Before doing that, I am just going to acknowledge that I am feeling particularly sensitive about all this right now, this very early “morning after.” For one thing, we just buried our cousin under very sad circumstances that this whole discussion undoubtedly factors so heavily into. His father, our uncle, had been married five times. What does that tell you? Our cousin had his own frustration with women, and they with him, but it’s all very sad. And then there are all the messages Ive been getting. Some of them are literally heartbreaking. All these big tough guys. Mens men, with all their big tough male sex drive, but many of them are suffering, genuinely suffering, in silence, and don’t know what to do about it. And then, believe it or not, this whole discussion has got me asking a lot of people, including friends and family members, some real uncomfortable personal questions. But the one thing it has completely confirmed for me is that there is a serious issue. And then, in addition to all that, my good wife, with her female intuition, etc., cut through a bunch of baggage and crap last night, and in Sarah’s words, gave me a very special and indeed timely gift. I realize that in Mamabear’s words, this may be TMI, but my wife told me that I probably need to plan on putting that much effort into seducing her every single time, And, if once in a while I strike out, that is one of those self evident realities of life. It’s simply not possible to hit a homer every time you step up to the plate. But you can’t give up, and you’ve got to keep stepping up. Glue is good.

But, here’s the modification: It’s not hardly fair or accurate to say that “sex is the glue that holds it all together.” But what I think it is fair and accurate to say is that Love is the glue that holds it all together. And to be effective, that love must include at least a couple important ingredients, including both effective communication, satisfying sex, AND AFFECTION. We might actually call it “affectionate, communicative sex.” It’s true, it’s not just sex. But sex is a critical component of it. And as several other people have confirmed with very valuable contributions, to the extent it is physically and medically possible, sex needs to be part of the equation. Without caring, loving, affectionate sex, there really isn’t that much point of being married. So here is the modified statement: Caring, loving, affectionate sex is the glue. It is the glue that holds marriages, families, and society together. Without it, they crumble and fall apart. That is reality.

I’m not going to go with “righteousness,” or “worthiness,” or any of those wish-washy, vague and relative terms that don’t really mean anything. I live in one of the most pretentious, self-righteous wards in the Church. They literally think they are the next city of Enoch. Testimony meeting is literally nauseating. But if there is any actual, effective glue, it is not the so-called “righteousness.” It would be caring, loving, affectionate sex, just like is anywhere else, that isn’t quite as self-righteous.

Caring, loving, affectionate sex is what makes good babies, and, to the extent it is still possible, babies are and should be a big part of the whole “righteous” equation, because when a husband and wife are having plenty of caring, loving, affectionate, satisfying sex, they will beam. They will be happy, and there will be a spirit and an aura about them. And their children will beam too. Take that out of the equation, and it will be a completely different aura. A completely different spirit. A cold, frigid, withholding wife will have a completely different spirit, aura, and demeanor than an affectionate “attentive” wife. And same with the husband. A domineering, tyrannical husband will have a different aura, and so will the whole family. If the right sexual chemistry isn’t there between the husband and wife (and it often isn’t), it will be discernible to people with a real gift of discernment.

Now, finally, I want to say that every single person who has participated in this discussion has had an influence on my thinking. There was plenty of stuff I didn’t really want to hear, but I heard it. I listened, and it has influenced my thinking. Mamabear, I did hear you, and it made a difference. What would Jesus do? It is a great question. Atticus, I know we’ve locked horns a little bit, but you have forced me to think, and to re-examine some of my positions. It wasn’t what I wanted to hear, or how I wanted to hear it said, but it needed to be said. Thank you. Sarah, what can I say? You’ve worn me down. I have changed my definition of glue because of you. It is now “Caring, loving, affectionate, SATISFYING SEX is the Glue.” Thank you.

In my mind, that new definition has such a fulfilling sound to it. Whether it is fully “righteous” or not, Jonesy, it still has a very fulfilling ring to it. Until I am of one heart and one mind, in the meantime, I still want to be one flesh.

Frank and Hyloglygh, the discussion would have been a lot more single dimensional, and would have really struggled without you and your unique, thought-provoking perspectives.

I know there are many watching this whole ongoing discussion from the sidelines, but thanks to everyone who has been brave enough to step up and engage. This isn’t and hasn’t been a standard polygamy thread. It hasn’t been easy, but this thread ended up going epic. It's starting to rival the railroad thread, which I appreciate because Brother Faith (AGF) has been one of my inspirations. But I hope to finish something that he did not. And in the process, some of you deserve metals of valor.

Personally, I have no problem with plural marriage. As I’ve explained elsewhere, I have discovered that I am indeed a closet Fundamentalist. In fact, crazy as it sounds, I would like to actually have more children. I guess it’s kind of like finally acknowledging and admitting that you’re an alcoholic. But, not surprisingly, my wife has no interest in plural marriage. This could be a huge source of conflict, and drive a serious wedge between us. And it that is how the discussion started. But, like I’ve always told her, “I wouldn’t want to do it without you — I won’t do it without you.” If she was on board, I would be very open-minded to trying plural marriage -- I would like more kids! But since she’s not, I'm just a recovering closet fundamentalist..

And, we’re working on an understanding — even though we can't have any more kids, as long as there is plenty of glue, it won’t be an issue. That is our compromise.

But, here’s the bottom line, especially with the new definition: God wants us to have glue. We need to have glue. Glue is what binds and holds marriages, families, and societies together. Long live glue! And rue the day that this is no longer the case.

God bless, and Happy Sabbath!
I would explain it when I have time. But. May not need to after hearing that you modified your position! Nice! Maybe it would be useful for other guys though because you have struck a nerve with this thread. So at some point I may put something up about it. I know for a fact that there are WIDESPREAD issues in this arena that almost never get talked about. And it is part of the collapse in culture and values that we are witnessing. You hit a major root cause of a lot of sorrow and a lot of dysfunction and to be frank— a lot of the cause of why we see kids running around who are such little misbehaving monsters nowadays.

Guys suffering in silence and kids on edge feeling uneasy. Due to living in households with huge amounts of built up tension. I’ll just say it— many times caused by a withholding woman. Maybe a lot of them had good reason at first to be withholding. But then they got into a habit of it and can’t get out of the rut. Or many of them end up not wanting to get out of the rut they have been there so long.

Well there is a way out. It could be a righteous way out. And it may or may not include the wife. Just totally depends on her and what her deal is. But there is hope!

Atrasado
captain of 100
Posts: 416

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by Atrasado »

Sarah wrote: September 24th, 2022, 10:25 pm
Atrasado wrote: September 24th, 2022, 6:58 pm I have sat on the church court of a man whose wife told him after the second child that that was the last time they would have sex. He was excommunicated for adultery. I told the other men there that I thought she should have been excommunicated as well.

Because we don't have the right as spouses to declare impure what the Lord declared pure. We don't have the right to deny the Lord's teaching that spouses become one flesh. I believe defrauding a spouse from the marital intimacy that is implied in the marriage covenant is WRONG and just as bad a sin, in most instances as adultery.

If one of the spouses has a medical issue, then patience is needed. But if they take no action to resolve their medical issue they are betraying their covenants and defrauding their spouse.

If abuse is happening, then divorce generally should take place and I can't imagine intimacy reasonably happening then.

But a spouse that goes into a marriage thinking that they will over a long period of time withhold intimacy or who decides that later on because they feel like it is a despicable person. That's all. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's true. Only repentance and faith in the Lord can save them.
I think a wife should be willing to sacrifice occasionally for her husband. But what people need to understand is that if the wife is not receiving anything that can be appreciated during sex, and not feeling loved from it, it is not making them one flesh. The idea of one flesh should be the sharing of sexual love gifts, emphasis on the love part. If she is not feeling loved, then it is degrading sex and not pure.

Sex should be about expressing love and procreating, not about the wife sacrificing her body to her husband's lustful desires. If it really was about love and not lust, he would put her before himself, because she has the weaker sex drive. He needs to figure it out instead of giving up and looking at other women. What if she had a medical condition that could not be fixed? Some women have severe pain with intercourse that cannot be fixed, so is this about love, or about expectations, and feeling entitled to something from someone who is weaker than you.

Literally becoming one flesh may not happen in this life. It is more important to show charity. It would only be driving a wedge between them to expect a wife to dutifully endure something that makes her feel used or in pain. This is like any other challenge in life or difficult relationship. Instead of giving up, the husband should go to the Lord to get revelation on how to help his wife. It's his responsibility to make physical affection and intimacy a thing of love for her. If she doesn't like touching, he can ask his wife to stimulate him without him touching her. He has no right to touch her body simply for his own pleasure. Him touching her should only be making her happy, or he is touching her out of lust, not love.
True. The man should put the woman and her needs first. However, if the wife actually put her husband and his needs first instead of worrying about herself and what she got out of everything, as any spouse should, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I know of a man who has given his wife thousands of back and neck rubs because she needs them, in spite of his hands that truly ache. How unfair would it be if his wife felt put upon if he wanted to make love?

If you don't think sex is a need you should try having a high sex drive for a month or two. Then I'd be glad to hear you talk about it. Truly, it isn't a "need" like air or food, but you'd be convinced it is if you could feel that. But it's as much of a need for some men and women as ibuprofen or a deep tissue massage. But some people think that the person with this drive is wicked just for having it, even though they didn't choose it and God gave it to them. Carrying each other's burdens so that they might be light doesn't count here 'cause this God given process is disgusting, right?

I guess empathy for each other's position is probably what is needed here, even though we are both struggling with that.
Last edited by Atrasado on September 25th, 2022, 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

hyloglyph
captain of 100
Posts: 926

Re: Women and Plural Marriage -- the Great Re-Awakening?

Post by hyloglyph »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 25th, 2022, 5:37 am
It is basically just monogamy with a verbal baggage clause
“Baggage clause”? Look Hyloglyph, thanks, but you’re going to have to do a little better job of explaining it than that, and I know you can. If we’re going to have to “negotiate legal hurdles, church hurdles, and doctrinal hurdles,” we better clearly define the terms a little better. Please help me out.

Otherwise, believe it or not, I’m actually going to back-up and modify my entire position a little bit, but in a very important way.

Before doing that, I am just going to acknowledge that I am feeling particularly sensitive about all this right now, this very early “morning after.” For one thing, we just buried our cousin under very sad circumstances that this whole discussion undoubtedly factors so heavily into. His father, our uncle, had been married five times. What does that tell you? Our cousin had his own frustration with women, and they with him, but it’s all very sad. And then there are all the messages Ive been getting. Some of them are literally heartbreaking. All these big tough guys. Mens men, with all their big tough male sex drive, but many of them are suffering, genuinely suffering, in silence, and don’t know what to do about it. And then, believe it or not, this whole discussion has got me asking a lot of people, including friends and family members, some real uncomfortable personal questions. But the one thing it has completely confirmed for me is that there is a serious issue. And then, in addition to all that, my good wife, with her female intuition, etc., cut through a bunch of baggage and crap last night, and in Sarah’s words, gave me a very special and indeed timely gift. I realize that in Mamabear’s words, this may be TMI, but my wife told me that I probably need to plan on putting that much effort into seducing her every single time, And, if once in a while I strike out, that is one of those self evident realities of life. It’s simply not possible to hit a homer every time you step up to the plate. But you can’t give up, and you’ve got to keep stepping up. Glue is good.

But, here’s the modification: It’s not hardly fair or accurate to say that “sex is the glue that holds it all together.” But what I think it is fair and accurate to say is that Love is the glue that holds it all together. And to be effective, that love must include at least a couple important ingredients, including both effective communication, satisfying sex, AND AFFECTION. We might actually call it “affectionate, communicative sex.” It’s true, it’s not just sex. But sex is a critical component of it. And as several other people have confirmed with very valuable contributions, to the extent it is physically and medically possible, sex needs to be part of the equation. Without caring, loving, affectionate sex, there really isn’t that much point of being married. So here is the modified statement: Caring, loving, affectionate sex is the glue. It is the glue that holds marriages, families, and society together. Without it, they crumble and fall apart. That is reality.

I’m not going to go with “righteousness,” or “worthiness,” or any of those wish-washy, vague and relative terms that don’t really mean anything. I live in one of the most pretentious, self-righteous wards in the Church. They literally think they are the next city of Enoch. Testimony meeting is literally nauseating. But if there is any actual, effective glue, it is not the so-called “righteousness.” It would be caring, loving, affectionate sex, just like is anywhere else, that isn’t quite as self-righteous.

Caring, loving, affectionate sex is what makes good babies, and, to the extent it is still possible, babies are and should be a big part of the whole “righteous” equation, because when a husband and wife are having plenty of caring, loving, affectionate, satisfying sex, they will beam. They will be happy, and there will be a spirit and an aura about them. And their children will beam too. Take that out of the equation, and it will be a completely different aura. A completely different spirit. A cold, frigid, withholding wife will have a completely different spirit, aura, and demeanor than an affectionate “attentive” wife. And same with the husband. A domineering, tyrannical husband will have a different aura, and so will the whole family. If the right sexual chemistry isn’t there between the husband and wife (and it often isn’t), it will be discernible to people with a real gift of discernment.

Now, finally, I want to say that every single person who has participated in this discussion has had an influence on my thinking. There was plenty of stuff I didn’t really want to hear, but I heard it. I listened, and it has influenced my thinking. Mamabear, I did hear you, and it made a difference. What would Jesus do? It is a great question. Atticus, I know we’ve locked horns a little bit, but you have forced me to think, and to re-examine some of my positions. It wasn’t what I wanted to hear, or how I wanted to hear it said, but it needed to be said. Thank you. Sarah, what can I say? You’ve worn me down. I have changed my definition of glue because of you. It is now “Caring, loving, affectionate, SATISFYING SEX is the Glue.” Thank you.

In my mind, that new definition has such a fulfilling sound to it. Whether it is fully “righteous” or not, Jonesy, it still has a very fulfilling ring to it. Until I am of one heart and one mind, in the meantime, I still want to be one flesh.

Frank and Hyloglygh, the discussion would have been a lot more single dimensional, and would have really struggled without you and your unique, thought-provoking perspectives.

I know there are many watching this whole ongoing discussion from the sidelines, but thanks to everyone who has been brave enough to step up and engage. This isn’t and hasn’t been a standard polygamy thread. It hasn’t been easy, but this thread ended up going epic. It's starting to rival the railroad thread, which I appreciate because Brother Faith (AGF) has been one of my inspirations. But I hope to finish something that he did not. And in the process, some of you deserve metals of valor.

Personally, I have no problem with plural marriage. As I’ve explained elsewhere, I have discovered that I am indeed a closet Fundamentalist. In fact, crazy as it sounds, I would like to actually have more children. I guess it’s kind of like finally acknowledging and admitting that you’re an alcoholic. But, not surprisingly, my wife has no interest in plural marriage. This could be a huge source of conflict, and drive a serious wedge between us. And it that is how the discussion started. But, like I’ve always told her, “I wouldn’t want to do it without you — I won’t do it without you.” If she was on board, I would be very open-minded to trying plural marriage -- I would like more kids! But since she’s not, I'm just a recovering closet fundamentalist..

And, we’re working on an understanding — even though we can't have any more kids, as long as there is plenty of glue, it won’t be an issue. That is our compromise.

But, here’s the bottom line, especially with the new definition: God wants us to have glue. We need to have glue. Glue is what binds and holds marriages, families, and societies together. Long live glue! And rue the day that this is no longer the case.

God bless, and Happy Sabbath!
Outstanding post. Read it thrice. It is interesting that there is an element that is unfolding in real time and it is getting put into words here. Pretty unusual I’d say.

:idea: Important thread. Important topic! :idea:

Post Reply