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

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
petertaylorpedro
captain of 10
Posts: 27

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

Post by petertaylorpedro »

If for some unfortunate reason I were single again, I can guarantee you I would CHOOSE to remain such for fear of ending up being married to someone who secretly harbors similar views as that of Sarah.

I've been married now for over 15 years, and it didn't take me very long to learn that what makes my wife happy are her idols of shopping, Netflix, and not having the kids. Since I love her dearly, everything I do goes toward facilitating that. Is this what I want? No. Do I get annoyed? Do I feel ABUSED, NEGLECTED, TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF? YES, all the time. BUT I do it because marriage is a give and take, two-way street. Does she always reciprocate for the things she knows I value (her attention and her time, whether sexually or not)? More often than not, no sadly.

My heart goes out to the guys here that aren't getting any attention/affection/sex, whatsoever. So sad. Gone are the days of assuming that sexual relations are a reasonable expectation of being married.

Whatever happened to "assume good intentions"? I love how quick team-Sarah somehow knows their mans' intentions (i.e. he's only doing this cuz he wants to use me for my body).

To those on team Sarah: I know you love your husbands. It certainly is a different way of loving that I am familiar with. I would be SURPRISED if there weren't things in your marriage with your husband that you...

did
put up with
allowed
didn't prevent

..SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU LOVE HIM, whether it was your first choice or you liked it or not. If you don't, I would pity dearly your poor husbands.

I would just ask: WHY SHOULD ANY LEVEL OF PHYSICAL AFFECTION/INTIMACY BE THE TREATED DIFFERENTLY?


For the record, I tend to believe Jesus at face value when he said divorce is only an option in cases of adultery. Also, I don't believe my Father in Heaven is a Celestial polygamist. I think the ladies guts get it right here - NO man can every truly be united and one with his wife if he has more than one. THAT SAID, so long as the parties agree, I definitely see it as a VIALBE OPTION in this telestial world to preserve love and harmony in the family. But sans section 132 which I view as a post-Joseph invention, God never commanded polygamy in my view. Lastly, I view masturbation as a sin, and have a hard time seeing God ever condoning it.

User avatar
Baurak Ale
Nauvoo Legion Captain
Posts: 1068
Location: The North Countries (Upper Midwest, USA)

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

Post by Baurak Ale »

Jonesy wrote: September 26th, 2022, 12:29 pm
tmac wrote: September 26th, 2022, 7:36 am Just curious, Jonesy, how old are you? I might have said all the same things at 35-45.

But just to test your “righteous” theory, mentally neuter yourself; completely bridle yourself, and completely abstain for 10 years, and then come back and talk about your wonderful, righteous experience.

Until you do that you’re talking pure theory, all righteous form and talk, with questionable substance to back it up.

After people drop words like righteous and worthy enough times as if they have any actual real measurable meaning, I realize that they probably just lack broader experience and perspective.

It’s like the old saying about pessimists — all most pessimists are is simply optimists with experience.

With all due respect, you’re sounding like a preachy woman. The answer to everything is more righteousness. If we were all just more righteous, it would fix everything. If we could just all be perfect, the world would be perfect. *Heavy Sigh*

But, *Sigh*, it must be so hard to try to righteously teach such a bunch of carnal, crusty old cavemen. If we all just wanted to, we could live happily in a world without glue, as MM calls it. It must be so painful to have to deal with mere mortals.
Bingo. I’m in the latter end.

My intent from the beginning was to tell MY truth—stated at the forefront. And my hesitation was in having to open up about these things.

I completely understand that the more I learn, the less I know. Ego is not our amigo.

I don’t know anything, and I’m not righteous.

I am absolutely limited to my experiences—that’s all I know. My only intent in using “righteous” in my last post was to recognize those who had to live and master their God-given instincts. And *I only* accept that fate as well if needs be, but I’ll cross that bridge if/when it comes. My understanding is that during tribulations, the end times, those natural desires that we have not mastered are only going to resurface with a vengeance. It’s better to master those now in whatever way you see fit.

As far as sounding like a preachy woman, I’ll work on that. Those things were just in me to say and I hope that good can be made of it. I am accepting of whatever it is that you think is righteous in this situation—not just what I think it is.
Hey Jonesy, for what it's worth my experience agrees completely with yours (and, yes, it absolutely helps that my wife too is a good communicator). I think it's not a coincidence that Peter mentions "temperance" among the traits needed for one's calling and election to be made sure (see 2 Peter 1). I also recognize and give a hat tip to your humble response here. Thanks for your testimony—written directly and indirectly.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 193

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

Since we’re on a roll here, I’m going to ask a couple more probing questions, especially about this idea that masturbation is always a sin, and God would never condone it.

Is it a sin to masturbate for the purpose of utilizing artificial insemination to conceive a child? Is it a sin for a woman to masturbate in order to climax with her husband? Which is the greater sin: any masturbation under any possible conditions, or birth control to severely limit the size of one’s family, and for the purpose of engaging in purely recreational, non-procreative sex?

What say you?
Last edited by Mangus MacLeod on September 26th, 2022, 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Senkyoshi
captain of 50
Posts: 52

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

Post by Senkyoshi »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 26th, 2022, 2:17 pm Since we’re on a roll here, I’m going to ask a couple more probing questions, especially about this idea that masturbation is always a sin, and God would never condone it.

Is it a sin to masturbate for the purpose on utilizing artificial insemination to conceive a child? Is it a sin for a woman to masturbate in order to climax with her husband? Which is the greater sin: any masturbation under any possible conditions, or birth control to severely limit the size of one’s family, and for the purpose of engaging in purely recreational, non-procreative sex?

What say you?
My take:

1. Is it a sin... No
2. Is it a sin... No
3. Which is the greater sin... Neither

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6705

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

Post by Sarah »

petertaylorpedro wrote: September 26th, 2022, 1:51 pm If for some unfortunate reason I were single again, I can guarantee you I would CHOOSE to remain such for fear of ending up being married to someone who secretly harbors similar views as that of Sarah.

I've been married now for over 15 years, and it didn't take me very long to learn that what makes my wife happy are her idols of shopping, Netflix, and not having the kids. Since I love her dearly, everything I do goes toward facilitating that. Is this what I want? No. Do I get annoyed? Do I feel ABUSED, NEGLECTED, TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF? YES, all the time. BUT I do it because marriage is a give and take, two-way street. Does she always reciprocate for the things she knows I value (her attention and her time, whether sexually or not)? More often than not, no sadly.

My heart goes out to the guys here that aren't getting any attention/affection/sex, whatsoever. So sad. Gone are the days of assuming that sexual relations are a reasonable expectation of being married.

Whatever happened to "assume good intentions"? I love how quick team-Sarah somehow knows their mans' intentions (i.e. he's only doing this cuz he wants to use me for my body).

To those on team Sarah: I know you love your husbands. It certainly is a different way of loving that I am familiar with. I would be SURPRISED if there weren't things in your marriage with your husband that you...

did
put up with
allowed
didn't prevent

..SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU LOVE HIM, whether it was your first choice or you liked it or not. If you don't, I would pity dearly your poor husbands.

I would just ask: WHY SHOULD ANY LEVEL OF PHYSICAL AFFECTION/INTIMACY BE THE TREATED DIFFERENTLY?


For the record, I tend to believe Jesus at face value when he said divorce is only an option in cases of adultery. Also, I don't believe my Father in Heaven is a Celestial polygamist. I think the ladies guts get it right here - NO man can every truly be united and one with his wife if he has more than one. THAT SAID, so long as the parties agree, I definitely see it as a VIALBE OPTION in this telestial world to preserve love and harmony in the family. But sans section 132 which I view as a post-Joseph invention, God never commanded polygamy in my view. Lastly, I view masturbation as a sin, and have a hard time seeing God ever condoning it.
I'm sorry you didn't appreciate some of my views. The give and take is a given, and yes I do give to my husband in so many ways and put up with things I don't like, just because I love him, and he does the same for me. This is part of learning patience and love in marriage. And if you are feeling abused, or taken advantage of by your wife, or feel like she feels entitled to any of the things you give her, there's no harm in setting boundaries on what you will give her, and it would probably be good for her to realize that you are taking into account what it costs you to give to her.

I didn't really get into this principle but it's something husbands and wives need to understand: The gift of sex is like no other gift and shouldn't be compared with any other gift besides the marriage offer itself. You can't compare it to giving your wife shopping money or netflix, or her giving you a nice cooked meal. Sexual relations is the only gift besides the marriage offer or agreement itself, where the giver is required to receive, and the receiver is required to give the same gift at the exact same time. Can you think of any other gift like this besides sexual intimacy or marriage?

You can give your wife money or whatever she likes, but you aren't required to receive that gift for yourself. You can give your wife netflix, but you're not required to sit there and watch it with her. So you give your wife lots of things, and she gives you lots of things, but the gift of sex is special and unique. It's not fair or appropriate to compare it to all the other gifts, and say, "She is obligated to give to me because it's something I like and value, and I give her all sorts of things," when she is also obligated to receive sex at the same time. So what are you giving her that she can also love and appreciate? And if she can't appreciate your gift, why are you forcing it upon her? That's why I've suggested to husbands, if they feel like their wife isn't giving them sex, to ask her to touch you only, and he keep his hands off of her, if she doesn't like it, because it doesn't seem to matter to you how she feels about it receiving it, when it does matter.

Did you read my example of the man who could not ejaculate? Do you think it would be fair if you were that man that your wife should demand that she touch you so she can be satisfied, at your expense of getting all worked up and never having a release? That seems to be what you're saying a wife should tolerate with her husband. I say no, it is not something she should have a duty to tolerate. It is the husband's duty having the stronger sexual response, to put his wife first and bring her up to his level of being able to appreciate sex before he can enjoy appreciating it himself.
Last edited by Sarah on September 26th, 2022, 4:10 pm, edited 14 times in total.

hyloglyph
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1043

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

Post by hyloglyph »

Continue on with Magnus’ questions and ignore my post here. It is just a side note and I only post it now because I won’t have time to post later today or later this week. I certainly would not want to interrupt Sarah in her thoughts either.


:idea: PREFACE TO FOOTNOTES :idea:
I put this out just hypothetically and theoretically. I am married and I have more kids than can legally ride in a crew cab pickup but I am not really in a position to be really talking about these issues at all. I just bring this up as illustrative of a small sliver of my understanding of the issue and I write everything respectfully— especially to the folks on here that are older than me. I also write everything for my own information and reference and no one else’s.

***Warning***
Do not read the following. This is a footnote that I am adding to this thread. It is boring. And dumb. And only semi related to the conversation. The OP knows nothing about this and I only add it for my own self since I am interested in this thread and I know men AND women who could benefit by it. But even to those people— do not read the rest of this. It is only a footnote and is not part of the conversation. I like to be short and concise. But that is not possible when dealing with a topic that is so important/misunderstood/holy/contentious

***Warning. Do not read on. ****

FOOTNOTE A

DONT MURDER
Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that the Thou Shalt Not Kill commandment would be better worded as Thou Shalt Not Murder. Long story. But I think it’s pretty obvious that it’s true. So I won’t get into it.

I believe that using the word “kill” by the translators was a mistake. I think it’s also worded as “kill” when Abinadi mentions it in the Book of Mormon but Abinadi obviously used a different word when he said it in person and there is undoubtedly nuance lost in translation. And it could be that Joseph just recognized that Abinadi was quoting the Ten Commandments and deferred to the King James Version.

Especially when converting an ancient language into a modern one— there is always something lost. I have experience with old nonwritten language.

PUTTING AWAY A WIFE
Along those same lines as the whole Thou shalt not kill translation I also believe the New Testament instructions on putting away a wife are not understood correctly.

I have the sources for all this too I just would have to find them.

Instead of the instruction being that you can only put away a wife for adultery, it is my belief that adultery was only part of what was being conveyed by the Savior in his language.

A better translation might be something along the lines of you can only put away a wife for grave betrayal/ failure to love/grave disloyalty/ hate/ adultery/purposely working at cross purposes to the marriage/ something like that.

I know I know it seems like a stretch but it’s not. There’s actually even more than just that too.

Just look up the King James Version.

If you look at the King James translation in Matthew 19 it doesn’t say adultery it says you can put her away for fornication which also even implies even more than what I’m saying. Fornication in this instance implies marrying a wife and then finding out that she had already been with other dudes back when she was single. That’s an old concept. But some cultures do still think about stuff like that today. And it also implies more than just that- it also implies something about honesty on her part of representing fairly who she really is before marrying.

CONTRACT
A modern legal way to think about it is that it represents her getting married in good faith with a disclosure sheet signed off on by both parties and an understanding that what marriage represents is what they are intending to do.

THE CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE
Marriage as a concept by definition contains within it the concept of reproductive copulation which is why some people can’t get on board with calling what the gays do when they play house “marriage” because the actual definition of marriage implies something that two dudes can’t do and two chicks can’t do and so originally the perks and the dowries and the wedding gifts and the time off and the tax benefits afforded to “marriages” were granted because the couple were agreeing to work together raise the next generation and to further and keep alive the tribe/culture/nation/bloodline/traditions/pedigree/whatever by trying in cheerful good faith to reproduce.

BILL OF DIVORCEMENT
So there is a lot of meaning being left on the table when someone just says that the only reason a wife can be put away is if she commits the modern English interpretation of the word “adultery.” This fact is demonstrably true because the scriptures say fornication in a lot of versions. Not adultery. Fornication. The King James Version reads fornication too. Fornication is something that happens pre marriage. Before marriage. And whatever the word is in the original language— its definition is not just equal to the modern surface definition of the English word fornication

OLD LAYERED LANGUAGES
Remember Joseph smith took “in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth” all the way to “the head one of the gods brought forth a counsel of the gods” or something like that.

These old words have depth and full backstories. A word has a whole history. A word has a whole understood bibliography (Herman Melville cited the whole bibliography of the word “whale” before he then penned the words Call me Ishmael.)

Especially with old languages, there is just a whole lot more meaning being conveyed than just the surface meaning.

So

NEVER PUT AWAY A CAPITAL W WIFE
Basically you can’t ever put away a wife that truly loves you and who has never and would never betray you. A real capital W wife. That’s one way to understand what might be being conveyed by the savior.

To ditch a wife who truly loves you and hasn’t betrayed you and is loyal to you and was honest with you about what she is like before you married her and who wants to be with you and who wants to procreate with you— would be an extremely extremely extremely serious sin for reasons that are illustrated in this thread— for example: not everyone is blessed with wives like that, in fact it may be rare in some decades or locations and only available while supplies last so for a man to put a wife like that away would be extremely unholy AND Jesus goes on to explain that if a man marry her after the first guy ditches her then he would be an adulterer too now because he is getting with a women who has this real tie of loyalty to another guy.

That truly is what it says. Go back and read it and try not to get mixed up.

It’s an old concept. Very old. Very long story. But it’s all over the Book of Mormon and bible. These concepts. Old ideas. This concept in particular is used all the time to describe dynamics that play out between man/wife , Jesus/church, chosenpeople/god ,etc etc.

***Warning***
If you have read thus far, I am sorry. But please do not proceed. This is a footnote only and it is unrelated to the conversation in this thread. Turn back. Scroll on. I am taking a risk by writing this as far as looking like an idiot goes, plus— it is very boring and almost impossible to fully understand. Plus I don’t personally like this type of almost sciencey writing.
*************************************

FOOTNOTE B

THE BALANCE OF SPINNING POLARITES
Now here is the part that may disappoint the polygamists— it’s my understanding that the male/female union is the image of god. That’s one reason why the sins surrounding betrayal of the man/wife relationship are up there with murder as far as seriousness.

One man and one wife who are one flesh create the children that can make their union an eternal entity. That man/wife relationship contains in it unlimited growth. Or unlimited growth potential.

THE PLANE OF THE GODS
The fact and possibly of unlimited growth potential that exists inside a marriage when the man and wife’s most private organs are combined puts the couple onto the level of the gods.

ORIENTAL THOUGHT
This isn’t going to make any damn sense to most anyone but surprisingly enough you could probably most easily symbolize the concept in your mind with the yin yang symbol.

I lived in Asia. There are holy traditions in the east too. Some mentioned in the Bible. Some that describe Christian concepts but don’t give them the same names as we do.

LEAD ACID BATTERY GALAXY SIZED
The normal yin yang is how the concept looks when viewing it from directly above.

But when you imagine what that yin yang concept might look like when viewed from the side it would be a beam of masculine (+) energy and a beam of feminine (-) energy shooting straight up and swirling around each other. Spiraling each other. Containing each other. Pushing each other upward. Pumping momentum towards each other like how you’d get a swing moving by leaning back to go forward and leaning forward to go back.

Two opposing strands, one light and one dark, spiraling around each other and balancing each other out equally. They are pushing and pulling each other as they spin up.

The two small circles in the yin yang are symbolic of the rungs of true connection and understanding and balance (love?) that connect the two beams as they flow upwards and dance around each other. This is why inside the dark half of the yin yang there is a light circle and contained in the light half there is a dark circle. So they each have dark and light. But they don’t make a full circle on their own. Only when the whole thing is added up and combined does it become a balanced/ filled out/ expressed/dynamic circle that then has upward movement potential.

Hard to describe.

It’s like two border collies herding not cattle but each other. Up a mountain. Haha

Its a Texas two step.

Its a twirling dance.

Or a very old symbol would be a couple copulated.

Or a two headed eagle or two headed dragon flying up.

Or Adam connected to his wife through his rib.

Believe me, I know that this barely makes sense.

ETERNAL PERPETUATION OF GENETICS VIA REPRODUCTION AND RESPONSIBLE EARTHLY STEWARDSHIP
Basically I’m saying that the yin yang if you view it from the side looks like a DNA strand.

And if you balance your marriage and family correctly you can spiral that strand up into eternity.

You need a balanced relationship, a land of promise, and then you need to make sure your posterity keeps the whole deal going after you pass on.

The yin yang balance when viewed from the side is a double helix with rungs.

A spiral staircase.

An upward spiraling ladder.

Look down a spiral staircase from satellite view and no depth perception and it’s a circle with a spiral to it. Aka a yin yang. Look at a spiral staircase from the side and it’s a DNA strand. Transverse plane vs saggital plane.

BALANCE POINT
The polar opposites twirling around each other in unison balances really good and naturally with one man and one wife I think.

And when the balance is good it’s like a battery flowing and charging all of creation. It produces kids that are happy and relaxed. It tends to nature and keeps it productive.

When polygamy is required I’m not sure it can produce this nice balance with all the women in the relationship at the same time. Most likely one guy can only do this with one woman.

I think Hyrum Smith never sealed to Mary Fielding Smith for this very reason even though he had the chance to.

What will disappoint the monogamists though is this— polygamy is allowed when God commands it. And polygamy does great things for the earth in many instances. And the idea that God will only command it through LDS church leadership channels is just something that brown nosers have added to scripture. Yes, God has to command it. No, he doesn’t have to make that command extended into the whole body of the general priesthood. Yes, God can dispense his commandments through young unlearned boys or through uncredentialed carpenters, or through strange lamanites standing on walls, or he can give his commandments to men directly either by conversing with them directly or sending angels to talk to them or by sending holy mortals to talk to them. And yes, he can also do it through the President of the church if he wants. He has many options.

God can and has commanded guys to practice Polygamy without making it into a widespread church program ala 1860s Salt Lake.

It is my belief that the polygamy is only to help cause these balanced, loving, reciprocal relationships to occur with more frequency.

I don’t know if a man can get the balance with a bunch of wifes all at once. That would require all the wives to be balanced amongst themselves plus then situate their collective selves into a balance point with the man. Would be much harder. Might be possible though.

The main strategy though appears to be that if the man has a bunch of wives he has a good shot at hitting the right balance point with at least one of them.

This is represented by Jacob preferring Rachael and his favorite son going through her. There are many other examples as well.

HOLY SPIRIT OF PROMISE
If a man is locked into a marriage with a woman who intends on extinguishing his chances at having a celestial relationship, then the woman needs to change, or there is a possibility that she can/should be either put away or another woman can/should be brought into the marriage who actually wants to play ball.

Remember that temple sealing on earth does not mean that it is sealed in heaven. The Holy Spirit of promise is needed for that. And that spirit doesn’t show up unless the the relationship reflects some type of heavenly balance that sets it apart from this thorny world.

All individuals are given a shot at this type of thing by birthright— being sons and daughters of Adam. And there are ways to deal with various unholy situations that arise from one or the other person sabotaging the others shot at obtaining it. And the rules for men are separate than the rules for women and have been since Adam. But they are still balanced.

I have references for all this but I would have to track them down. Many of them are old very old.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 193

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

Hylo, that post goes beyond science. It is Art, and contains many plain and self-evident truths that will probably perplex most people. Thank you.

hyloglyph
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1043

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

Post by hyloglyph »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 26th, 2022, 4:02 pm Hylo, that post goes beyond science. It is Art, and contains many plain and self-evident truths that will probably perplex most people. Thank you.
We are not at the point in the discussion where we need it yet but it looks like we are headed there so I fired it off while I can. That stuff there is riding along side at least one more concept that is related to what you are saying. I believe. But to talk about that would be getting really really wordy.
Basically it runs up against your why questions without explicitly getting into them.
Why when breeding rabbits do you need a lot of does but only a couple bucks? Why do men drive to push everything forward? Why does male virility span a lot longer of a time period than womens? Why did lehi cross an ocean despite his wife being pretty damn bugged about it at first? I can’t really touch those very important questions directly but I can spiral around some of them.

User avatar
tmac
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4526
Location: Reality

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

Post by tmac »

Hyloglygh, I just want to say that now you really are getting into some epic stuff, and I look forward to further discussion. I’m so glad that I’ve actually had a chance to make you’re acquaintance and get to know you. You are expressing some enlightenment here that goes beyond the norm, and along with what everyone else has been contributing, it has helped to open the eyes of my understanding. FO told us about a book about the Superior Man, which I have ordered, but you could probably write one called The Enlightened Man.

And, I do find all this very interesting, including what has been going on in my head. About 10 years ago there was a subforum here on LDSFF called the Fulness of the Gospel sub forum. There were some great discussions there. Because not everyone had access, and anyone who couldn’t be respectful was kicked out, the discussions there were truly enlightening, and, along with some corresponding insights from the Spirit, really helped to open the eyes of my understanding about some important things. And I am actually having a similar experience with this thread.

I am in the process of trying to make a new ranch acquisition, and have been doing a lot of driving lately. I have driven almost 1000 miles in last couple days, and I’ve got a ton more driving to do this week. On Thursday I’m going to be driving to Texas to see a new grandson. My wife was supposed to be driving down with me, when my schedule would allow, but she decided she couldn’t stand to wait that long, so she flew down early. But because she is staying for about 3 weeks, she needs her car, so I am taking it down to her so she’ll have it. Anyway, lots of driving, and lots of time to think.

Yesterday, as I was driving, and thinking about this thread and some things people have said, and my reactions, etc., the spirit actually came upon me like the dews of heaven, and the eyes of my understanding were further opened.

At this point I do want to say that I completely agree with MM about the self-evident truths and realities of the male sex drive, and the tug of war between nature and nurture, as he has been describing it. And of course he and I have a lot more discussions than just on here, so we do talk about all this stuff.

But here’s the thing, some of the stuff that Jonesy, Atticus, Thinker and others have said have kind of grated on me. And I'm just going to say it, Sarah’s insistent redundancy just flat does grate on me. I get tired of hearing it. It makes me feel defensive, and I just want to shut it out.

But as I was driving yesterday I was defensively thinking about some things that both Jonesy and Sarah have said about ego. And then the spirit stepped in, peeled back a couple of layers, opened the eyes of my understanding, and a couple new lightbulbs came on, and I had a major Aha Moment. No, ego is not our amigo.

What I came to understand is that in the great tug of war between nature and nurture, in addition to all the important and fundamental, self-evident realities tied to the male sex drive, there is also this huge collision with the Male Ego that is essentially colliding and wreaking havoc with all of it, including the male sex drive. What I came to realize is that the vast, vast majority of the time the male ego is actually getting in the way of, and thwarting just about everything, including many potentially positive effects and/or outcomes of the male sex drive. And maybe part of that is necessary too, to help keep everything balanced out, because if it weren’t for that offensive male ego women (wives) might actually want to copulate a whole lot more, and, like males of other species, men might not be able to get anything else done.

But it is also this male ego that tells us that we are always right, and we can’t possibly be wrong about any of this, and most things that don’t happen exactly how we wish are usually someone else’s fault. And it is the male ego that stops us from seeing, understanding, and appreciating other perspectives, including the female perspective, including Sarah’s perspective, and prevents us from doing a better job of figuring out how to work with it and around it, because we want it our way, and we don’t see why we should have to consider the female perspective, and actually work for our wife’s love and affection, because, we are, afterall, males, so we deserve it, and it is our right and entitlement as husbands. So wham, bam, thank you ma’am.

MM asked who in the equation is going to be the responsible adult? I’m starting to see that if a man can use that pea-sized brain to start to figure some of this out, he should try to be the responsible adult in the equation, because he’s got all that drive to give him incentive, and if he can figure out how to control his ego, and treat his wife accordingly, she will be much more responsive, and receptive. But, unfortunately, the default setting of the standard male ego is to try to find someone else to blame.

Can anyone else see how both the male sex drive and the male ego factor into the whole plural marriage equation? How, rather than pull his head out of his a$$ and fix it with his existing wife, because he can’t possibly have any fault in the equation, he just wants to take a short cut and try it with someone else, and potentially kick his first wife to the curb and throw her under the bus in the process, even if, hypothetically they stay married. But that hypothetical is the only way he can seemingly justify any of this.

At this point, I have to agree that as a general rule it is the male sex drive that probably is the primary reason why some men become obsessed with plural marriage. And it is the male ego that prevents them from being willing to admit it. And it is also the male ego that prevents him from treating his existing wife in a way that might really help fix the underlying issues and problems. And, it’s hard for us big tough men to be willing to be vulnerable enough to be completely honest with ourselves, let alone talk about it.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that I am suddenly now anti-polygamy. I still don’t have any big negative biases. But unless God is actively involved in the equation, I do think that it should be driven almost entirely by the wife, without both male sex drive and the male ego unduly muddying the water.

Just my thoughts this morning. But, I’ve got a lot more driving to do this week.
Last edited by tmac on September 27th, 2022, 4:46 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Baurak Ale
Nauvoo Legion Captain
Posts: 1068
Location: The North Countries (Upper Midwest, USA)

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

Post by Baurak Ale »

tmac wrote: September 27th, 2022, 7:32 am [...] That doesn’t mean that I am now anti-polygamy. Not by a long shot. But I do think that it should be driven almost entirely by the wife, without both male sex drive and the male ego unduly muddying the water.

Just my thoughts this morning. But, I’ve got a lot more driving to do this week.
I've been intrigued by the line of thought expressed by the early Mormon leaders that the only marriages that are valid on earth are those performed by priesthood authority ("gentiles think they're married, but they're not actually married—the state cannot replace the priesthood"). The idea was that pro-monogamy/anti-polygamy arguments crumpled against the idea of eternal legality since being recognized in heaven mattered most above and beyond the number of women involved in the agreement (I'd say the LDS still believe this, doctrinally). What's intriguing is the implication regarding the consummating marriage act. Is that also a priesthood act?

In support of a positive answer to the above question is the interesting fact that originally the pioneer era temples—at least the St. George temple—had its uppermost floor reserved for honeymoon suites. That means above and beyond the celestial and sealing rooms were bedrooms for that final consummating act. (Wouldn't that be a great place to kick off eternity?)

If the foregoing postulations hold life-giving water, then perhaps the old warning about polygamy begins to make sense, which says "It will damn more men than it will exalt." Why would something true carry this weighty risk? It seems spelled out already in the scriptures since taking on the priesthood itself is already a weighty risk:

D&C 121:
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile.
It may well be inferred by these verses that the man who desires additional wives only because he's been burdened by the male sex drive may find himself satisfied physically in mortality but perhaps disappointed spiritually in eternity. In short, if a man cannot treat the relations with his wife as a delicate matter of priesthood—entreating his wife with all long-suffering, gentleness, and meekness, etc.—then why would God want to recognize anything else claimed by that man? Instead, it may be said of him in the end, "Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 193

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

There are things about this thread and this discussion that are really interesting, and then there are some things that are genuinely surprising.

From my perspective, one of the most surprising things about the thread is the fact that after circling around full circle two or three times, and taking a variety of different angles, at this point the discussion does seem to have circled all the way back around, and kept going to essentially a 180 degree different course and direction from whence it started, and may, perhaps, remain fairly permanently at this point.

On that score, I am going to share another excerpt from a good friend of mine, who I made aware of the thread, and was going to be interested in his perspective. This is what he had to say:
I have now read through the thread with some interest. I agree, certainly, that there are women -- objectively normal, sane women -- who want to be in a polygamous relationship, and probably more of them than many folks expect. The idea of a husband that is a proven safe, provident, comfortable person seems positive enough in some folks' minds to outweigh the negatives of having to share that husband, for instance. For my own part I still figure Jacob wasn't far off in his condemnation of polygamy in the general case. In this particular Fundamentalist community (in the Midwest), for instance, there are many families who have gotten into "The Principle", and then broken up over it. Generally it's been the first wives who ultimately decide they hate it, and leave their husbands. I can think of several such families right off, while the number of families I know of who have made polygamy work for more than a few years without some kind of divorce is extremely small. I've only been in this community for about a year, and I'm already tired of seeing husband after husband crying because his first wife left him, after they got into polygamy thinking they were doing the right thing.

Anyway, yeah, there are women that want polygamy, and certainly there are men that want it for a whole variety of reasons, including some a lot less carnal than one might guess. I still posit that it would take a pretty serious and obvious manifestation, to me and to my wife as well, to persuade me that the Lord wanted me to get into such a thing, and that while others can do as they please, barring that manifestation, I'm not interested in the heartache.
Surprisingly enough, between the workings of the spirit and the discussion in this thread, I had already been led to similar conclusions before receiving his email. If one stands back and objectively considers the big picture in that situation the end result becomes pretty predictable. A husband and wife may be having challenges in their intimate relationship. It is entirely possible that just about everything else is going okay, but if there is no glue there are going to be cracks in the foundation. So either the husband, wife or both decide to address the issue by adding another wife to give the husband more sexual outlet to help satisfy his male sex drive. It is pretty easy to see that HE thinks that adding another wife will fix HIS problems. But it’s also pretty easy to see what the likely outcome will be. What happens from there is probably fairly predictable in most cases. If the new wife does do a great job satisfying the needs of his sex drive, she will probably become the focus of his attention and affections, and the first wife will quickly start to feel even more neglected, and unwanted, and quickly conclude that for her the whole thing is a serious mistake. She thought she was going to have a friend in the new sister wife, but quickly realizes that her own female jealousies will simply not allow that to happen. So now she’s in a no-win situation.

If one really steps back and objectively considers the situation, the best solution is for the husband to take the lead and to make the changes and do the heavy lifting that is required to fix HIS problem with his existing wife by making her feel more loved and desired, etc. He’s got to get her to learn to actually like him (which means he’s got to change) before she’s going to want to “love” him. So, he’s got to start treating her differently, and make himself more likeable to her. If he wants to be able to adequately satisfy his male sex drive with one woman — his wife — he’s going to have to get his male ego, that Tmac discussed, out of the way and focus on learning to prioritize and satisfy her emotionally, so that she can feel good about satisfying him physically. Hard as it may be with that male ego to contend with, at the end of the day it really isn’t rocket science.

Now, here's the other big surprise, genuine blessing and tender mercy that has come out of this thread, at least for me. My wife started following it. As you might imagine, at first she was not only very put off by it, she was downright upset. Although she and I had already had all these discussions, it was upsetting to her to see it all in black and white in this thread. But then something happened. She kept reading, and kept following. And slowly, as she now tells me, she feels like she slowly started to better understand the male perspective, and the mechanics and self-evident truths behind it. And she has now had her own aha moments and light bulbs come on. And, at this point, her own perspectives and paradigms have completely changed -- not about plural marriage; I'm not sure that will ever happen -- but about the importance of continued marital intimacy and the reality that without any glue, the wheels do start to slowly loosen and come off the bus. There is a greater acknowledgment about the self-evident realities of the completely normal male sex drive. At this point, I think she would agree with both my definition and perspective about the importance of the glue. And what a genuine blessing, and total pleasant surprise it has been that those realizations and conclusions would come out of following this thread, especially to me.

I started out seeking validation for my desires to have another wife, and I ended up having the wife I've got tell me that if I can do a better job of working through the male ego so that we can do a better job of improving our emotional connections, she will do her best to try to deal with the mature male sex drive, and see to it that I would never feel like I might need another woman to help meet those needs. She says she’s not interested in the Law of Sarah — at least at this point. But if I will do my part, much as our Sarah here has described, she will do her part. That is our evolving compromise, and its feeling like a good one. For whatever it might be worth. to anyone else.

Thanks to everyone for their very valuable contributions to this whole discussion. I'm not suggesting the discussion is fully complete yet, but I will say that we have covered a lot of really important ground, and hopefully it will be a benefit to others.

And I do honestly think there might yet be one additional surprise that comes out of this thread: If plural marriage obsessed men will read this thread from start to finish, there is a good chance that they will not feel the need to start yet another plural marriage thread, and continue to discuss it ad nauseum and ad Infinitim. Perhaps this thread can be the beginning of the end of the endless plural marriage threads.

Life is a journey, and mine is a genuine adventure.

Happy trails, and God bless.
Last edited by Mangus MacLeod on September 28th, 2022, 10:11 am, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6705

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

Post by Sarah »

Baurak Ale wrote: September 27th, 2022, 8:38 am
tmac wrote: September 27th, 2022, 7:32 am [...] That doesn’t mean that I am now anti-polygamy. Not by a long shot. But I do think that it should be driven almost entirely by the wife, without both male sex drive and the male ego unduly muddying the water.

Just my thoughts this morning. But, I’ve got a lot more driving to do this week.
I've been intrigued by the line of thought expressed by the early Mormon leaders that the only marriages that are valid on earth are those performed by priesthood authority ("gentiles think they're married, but they're not actually married—the state cannot replace the priesthood"). The idea was that pro-monogamy/anti-polygamy arguments crumpled against the idea of eternal legality since being recognized in heaven mattered most above and beyond the number of women involved in the agreement (I'd say the LDS still believe this, doctrinally). What's intriguing is the implication regarding the consummating marriage act. Is that also a priesthood act?

In support of a positive answer to the above question is the interesting fact that originally the pioneer era temples—at least the St. George temple—had its uppermost floor reserved for honeymoon suites. That means above and beyond the celestial and sealing rooms were bedrooms for that final consummating act. (Wouldn't that be a great place to kick off eternity?)

If the foregoing postulations hold life-giving water, then perhaps the old warning about polygamy begins to make sense, which says "It will damn more men than it will exalt." Why would something true carry this weighty risk? It seems spelled out already in the scriptures since taking on the priesthood itself is already a weighty risk:

D&C 121:
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile.
It may well be inferred by these verses that the man who desires additional wives only because he's been burdened by the male sex drive may find himself satisfied physically in mortality but perhaps disappointed spiritually in eternity. In short, if a man cannot treat the relations with his wife as a delicate matter of priesthood—entreating his wife with all long-suffering, gentleness, and meekness, etc.—then why would God want to recognize anything else claimed by that man? Instead, it may be said of him in the end, "Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."
This reminds me of Elder Holland's talk, I think it's called, Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments, where he implies that the sex act is a sacrament or ordinance. After my last post where I stated that sexual activity was a unique gift, given and received by each at the same time, and that the only other love gift like it was marriage itself, I realized that more specifically, it is that in order to gain a husband you must give yourself as a wife, and to gain a wife you must give yourself as a husband. I thought about how all covenants are
two-way gifts, similar to this. The gifts promised don't always look the same but essentially they are. The oath and covenant of the Priesthood, which the sisters were asked to study a few years back, is essentially that you give your all to serve and obey God, and he gives you all that he has in return.
If you look at the united order or firm the elders were command to enter into, it was to be done by covenant. So somehow we need to understand how the principles of stewardship and consecration can blend with principles of covenants or two-way gifts, and correct principles of giving and receiving, and apply these principles to all things, including spouses. There is a quote by a woman who quoted one of the wives of the 12 in Joseph's day, that all the wives of the 12 were consecrated to God, meaning, they were given to Joseph. And it seemed like what Joseph was doing was asking the men to consecrate their wife to God (him), and in return, if they passed that test, he gave them back their wife at least for this life, and the men were then given the privilege of taking another wife for themselves, as Joseph was now acting in the place of God who could give wives. Whether or not this is exactly what God wanted Joseph to do we don't know, but the principles of stewardship and consecration seem to be what he was trying to follow. But I agree with the thought that just because the Priesthood gives one the right and privilege to do something, if that power to bless is used selfishly it will be to your condemnation.

You brought up the question, that if sex has to do with priesthood, why does God allow everyone to engage in it blameless if they are married for time only, and I think we could compare it to childbirth, as I have heard some describe that as a type of ordinance, with blood, water, pain, tearing etc. So maybe these things are all part of patriarchal and matriarchal priesthood. People are given an earthly, lower, temporal law to learn from, and then if they learn sufficiently to progress, the rights to these "ordinances" is sealed upon them.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 193

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

I just want to also say that I agree with this line of thinking — Making Love (as opposed to just having sex) — should be considered a marital sacrament, because it is a marital sacrament — perhaps the most important marital sacrament. Real glue, and plenty of it, makes couples glow.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 193

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

The other big surprise with this thread is that after being to active in coming full circle, and pretty much completely exhausting the subject from a practical (versus doctrinal) perspective, it would come to such an abrupt halt.

I’m not sure that I’ve ever been aware of a thread where people started out with such different perspectives and were going such different directions, about such a divisive and controversial topic, and after three weeks of intense, candid, bare-knuckle discussion, the primary participants probably actually came away much more closely aligned in their thinking. I don’t’ know exactly how to account for that, but I do think this discussion did end up having a unique balance of hardcore pragmatic reasoning, a lot of dogma and emotion, and at least in my case, at a certain point the spirit stepped in to bridge some gaps between the two.

At least for me, the more wholistic, multi-dimensional approach has been a very interesting and useful experience. And I want to sincerely thank Frank for his tip about the Superior Man book.
Last edited by Mangus MacLeod on September 30th, 2022, 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
HereWeGo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1222

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

Post by HereWeGo »

I think that women were able to understand the intensity of the God-given male sex drive better. Men were reminded of the strong emotional connection that exists with women when it comes to sex. Both can do more to satisfy their partner when they can understand them better. Wise people will use the things that were presented here and move forward to improve their sexual relations with their partner.

Perhaps each side understood more, was understood better and this lead to less of a need to explain and be heard. If this is the case, this was a very successful thread. Many thanks to MM for starting this and the many people who contributed to it.

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2829

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

Post by FrankOne »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 30th, 2022, 7:24 am The other big surprise with this thread is that after being to active in coming full circle, and pretty much completely exhausting the subject from a practical (versus doctrinal) perspective, it would come to such an abrupt halt.

I’m not sure that I’ve ever been aware of a thread where people started out with such different perspectives and were going such different directions, about such a decisive and controversial topic, and after three weeks of intense, candid, bare-knuckle discussion, the primary participants probably actually came away much more closely aligned in their thinking. I don’t’ know exactly how to account for that, but I do think this discussion did end up having a unique balance of hardcore pragmatic reasoning, a lot of dogma and emotion, and at least in my case, at a certain point the spirit stepped in to bridge some gaps between the two.

At least for me it had been a very interesting and useful experience. And I want to sincerely thank Frank for his tip about the Superior Man book.
Although i opposed Sarah on some counts quite incisively, she offered some candid and effective counsel on the state of mind of the woman that feels put off by the coarse nature of many men, and provided methods to show caring and kindness. In general, I learned from the encounter. Halcyon raised my eyebrows many times with unusually insightful viewpoints.

Thanks McLeod for creating various outlines for the discussion as it evolved as well as bringing up otherwise "taboo" subjects for open discussion.

It's very rare anymore that so much can be brought to the same subject from differing views with, as I found it, a productive end.

Ok, Rector, next subject?

User avatar
tmac
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4526
Location: Reality

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

Post by tmac »

Like MM, t can sincerely and genuinely say that this discussion and my full thought processes and spiritual experiences associated with it have moved the needle with me, and my understanding is bigger, better, and different than it was less than a month ago. But what I am really interested in knowing if it had any such influence or made any actual difference to those who have taken a more dogmatic, seemingly more entrenched approach in this discussion. What, if any, difference has this discussion made in their thinking? Has the needle moved?
Last edited by tmac on October 2nd, 2022, 3:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5868
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

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

Post by TheDuke »

I just want to make a point that I believe that intimacy (call it what you like) is not only the glue for marriages here but in the Celestial Kingdom as well. Folks don't want to think about this but it seems like very good and bad thing here is a pattern of the eternal. Bringing celestial life into existence must be about the most sublime act in all eternity.

Also, having said that, I feel that the entire purpose of celestial plural marriage has nothing to do with sex at all or any celestial intimacy. It is about becoming perfect and becoming god. As individuals we can never be perfect, not truly. Hence why always there is a council or partnership. To become perfect enough to bring celestial life into existence and then to continue to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of their offspring we must have a partnership that has two key components. Between the partnership there must exist all the attributes of godliness. And the partnership must be perfect enough to ensure that critical decisions are always made correctly (egoless if you will). For some of us that are way flawed, it may mean multiple partners. Not for sexual reasons. But to achieve perfection. Remember god is not man or woman, god is the partnership (which is why the intelligences flows flow unto them without compulsory means), i.e. creating celestial life.

Mamabear
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3351

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

Post by Mamabear »

TheDuke wrote: October 1st, 2022, 7:57 pm I just want to make a point that I believe that intimacy (call it what you like) is not only the glue for marriages here but in the Celestial Kingdom as well. Folks don't want to think about this but it seems like very good and bad thing here is a pattern of the eternal. Bringing celestial life into existence must be about the most sublime act in all eternity.

Also, having said that, I feel that the entire purpose of celestial plural marriage has nothing to do with sex at all or any celestial intimacy. It is about becoming perfect and becoming god. As individuals we can never be perfect, not truly. Hence why always there is a council or partnership. To become perfect enough to bring celestial life into existence and then to continue to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of their offspring we must have a partnership that has two key components. Between the partnership there must exist all the attributes of godliness. And the partnership must be perfect enough to ensure that critical decisions are always made correctly (egoless if you will). For some of us that are way flawed, it may mean multiple partners. Not for sexual reasons. But to achieve perfection. Remember god is not man or woman, god is the partnership (which is why the intelligences flows flow unto them without compulsory means), i.e. creating celestial life.
Shouldn’t two celestial people who make a baby equal a celestial baby? Not a baby with a spirit body?

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5868
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

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

Post by TheDuke »

A celestial being is a soul. I don't fully agree with but I really liked John P Pratt expose on the make up of a soul, spirit, truth, light, etc... search it back. Anyway, as I know understand things from the spirit and from seeing what is taught in the temple. Everything reproduces in it own kind and that male and female. Two celestial beings must produce a celestial offspring (child). Therefore "spirit child" is just another way of describing as celestial soul (enlarged spirit and celestial body) that is still innocent. That is it still lacks much light and truth. So we come here to gain the light and truth and along the way loose our innocence. Then go hom.

Mamabear
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3351

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

Post by Mamabear »

TheDuke wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 9:51 am A celestial being is a soul. I don't fully agree with but I really liked John P Pratt expose on the make up of a soul, spirit, truth, light, etc... search it back. Anyway, as I know understand things from the spirit and from seeing what is taught in the temple. Everything reproduces in it own kind and that male and female. Two celestial beings must produce a celestial offspring (child). Therefore "spirit child" is just another way of describing as celestial soul (enlarged spirit and celestial body) that is still innocent. That is it still lacks much light and truth. So we come here to gain the light and truth and along the way loose our innocence. Then go hom.
I appreciate your explanation but I don’t understand. I would think two resurrected bodies that reproduce would equal another glorified body of their own kind.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5868
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

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

Post by TheDuke »

Agreed, I thought that is what I said? However, seems always offspring start of as some form of embryo. None pop out identical to their parents when born.

User avatar
Alexander
the Great
Posts: 4590
Location: amongst the brotherhood of the Black Robed Regiment; cocked hat and cocked rifle

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

Post by Alexander »

TheDuke wrote: October 1st, 2022, 7:57 pm I just want to make a point that I believe that intimacy (call it what you like) is not only the glue for marriages here but in the Celestial Kingdom as well. Folks don't want to think about this but it seems like very good and bad thing here is a pattern of the eternal. Bringing celestial life into existence must be about the most sublime act in all eternity.

Also, having said that, I feel that the entire purpose of celestial plural marriage has nothing to do with sex at all or any celestial intimacy. It is about becoming perfect and becoming god. As individuals we can never be perfect, not truly. Hence why always there is a council or partnership. To become perfect enough to bring celestial life into existence and then to continue to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of their offspring we must have a partnership that has two key components. Between the partnership there must exist all the attributes of godliness. And the partnership must be perfect enough to ensure that critical decisions are always made correctly (egoless if you will). For some of us that are way flawed, it may mean multiple partners. Not for sexual reasons. But to achieve perfection. Remember god is not man or woman, god is the partnership (which is why the intelligences flows flow unto them without compulsory means), i.e. creating celestial life.
So you’re saying plural marriage isn’t as fulfilling as monogamy?

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5868
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

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

Post by TheDuke »

whatever the arrangement in CK for a partnership (god) it will be fulfilling and complete or the intelligences will not flow unto it and it will not be godly. BTW I think mother is the highest power in all creation, so a man with multiple wives, simply has multiple bosses and partners to serve. Hard to comprehend why that would be better or worse as infinite is infinite and finite is finite. you cannot have infinite plus one.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 193

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

I’ve been reading Frank’s The Way of the Superior Man book between conference sessions. Such a stark contrast. David Deida talks about self-evident truths and realities that our church leaders act scared to death of and never address. It is interesting that his book is an international best seller, and on Amazon it has almost 10,000 high 4-star ratings and reviews.

I’m sure there are plenty of people who contend that is because he takes a worldly secular approach. But I would completely disagree. It is the church that is taking the worldly approach, as Mormon men become more and more feminine and Mormon women become more and more masculine, while Deida takes a more spiritual approach, based on the realities of how God designed and created men and women. There is actually more real and raw wisdom in his book about this subject matter than I have been exposed to in over 50 years in the Church.

Of particular relevance to this specific discussion is the following passage:
In other times and cultures, it might have much more common and culturally accepted for a man to have multiple intimate partners, each fulfilling a different purpose, each partner contributing different skills, functions, and sexual energies to the whole. In our modern world, however, polygamy hasn’t been considered to be as much of a socially accepted option . . . although if you are like most men, you have certainly entertained the notion of multiple wives, and/or a mistress or two, with each fulfilling a different purpose. . . How many women you have sex with is your business. Before you consider more than one, however, it is best to prove your capacity with just one. If you can’t handle one — if deep communion, rejuvenating passion, and spiritual happiness are not the main features of your own resent intimacy — then you have not passed the test, and it is best to discipline your desires for more partners, since nobody is likely to be served .
Last edited by Mangus MacLeod on October 3rd, 2022, 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply