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

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

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

Post by Sarah »

harakim wrote: September 10th, 2022, 8:59 am
Sarah wrote: September 10th, 2022, 8:51 am So a man after marriage, discovers that his wife likes to spend lots of money, and she routinely spends all of it every month, mostly on stuff that only she wants. Should that husband continue to trust all their money in her hands? Should he divorce her? Or should he talk to her and set some boundaries so she can earn his trust? That's all I'm advocating for when it comes to sex. If a woman isn't happy with how her husband is using her body, or his attitude or behavior when it comes to sex, she won't trust him until he changes.
I agree that you should always try and work things out. You should trust that they have good intentions and that you don't understand everything that is going on. If you don't trust that they have good intentions, then I think you should try and fix that internally and if you can't, then do them a favor and get a divorce so they can marry someone who will love them. Having differences and trusting that the other person wants to work them out with you is the key.
I would say, if a woman isn't happy with how her husband is using her body, or his attitude or behavior when it comes to sex, then she should make that clear and set some boundaries. But if she doesn't trust that he wants what's best for her, then their relationship is on the fast track to nowhere.
Well, part of the problem is that a husband assumes his wife knows he has good intentions, but it doesn't come across to her enough. It gets complicated for the wife if she is unhappy with sex, because many times her husband's response to her weakness in her sex drive is that of disappointment, which sends the message to the wife that this problem is her fault. So how can she set boundaries and talk to her husband about his behavior or attitude, when all she's thinking is that she is the problem and is just not attracted to him enough? Subconsciously she doesn't trust him, because his communication of disappointment shows that he's thinking only of himself in that moment. But otherwise she's bought into the untrue message that he's entitled to it, and so his selfishness is justified, which means she's the one with the problem. She she goes on living in distrust and enduring one-sided sex because she has given up on herself, and she doesn't realize it's because she senses her husband has given up on her climaxing as well.

User avatar
harakim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2819
Location: Salt Lake Megalopolis

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

Post by harakim »

Sarah wrote: September 10th, 2022, 9:25 am
harakim wrote: September 10th, 2022, 8:59 am
Sarah wrote: September 10th, 2022, 8:51 am So a man after marriage, discovers that his wife likes to spend lots of money, and she routinely spends all of it every month, mostly on stuff that only she wants. Should that husband continue to trust all their money in her hands? Should he divorce her? Or should he talk to her and set some boundaries so she can earn his trust? That's all I'm advocating for when it comes to sex. If a woman isn't happy with how her husband is using her body, or his attitude or behavior when it comes to sex, she won't trust him until he changes.
I agree that you should always try and work things out. You should trust that they have good intentions and that you don't understand everything that is going on. If you don't trust that they have good intentions, then I think you should try and fix that internally and if you can't, then do them a favor and get a divorce so they can marry someone who will love them. Having differences and trusting that the other person wants to work them out with you is the key.
I would say, if a woman isn't happy with how her husband is using her body, or his attitude or behavior when it comes to sex, then she should make that clear and set some boundaries. But if she doesn't trust that he wants what's best for her, then their relationship is on the fast track to nowhere.
how can she set boundaries and talk to her husband about his behavior or attitude, when all she's thinking is that she is the problem and is just not attracted to him enough?
This is exactly my point. Making assumptions and not talking about an issue to find out the truth is going to lead to mistrust which lead to the death of a marriage.
Sarah wrote: September 10th, 2022, 9:25 am Subconsciously she doesn't trust him, because his communication of disappointment shows that he's thinking only of himself in that moment. But otherwise she's bought into the untrue message that he's entitled to it, and so his selfishness is justified, which means she's the one with the problem.
This drives home the above point. In this scenario, there are a lot of ideas that are being created and supported completely in the woman's mind and the man is probably not even aware of it.
Sarah wrote: September 10th, 2022, 9:25 am She she goes on living in distrust and enduring one-sided sex because she has given up on herself, and she doesn't realize it's because she senses her husband has given up on her climaxing as well.
That is not something the man can control. While the man does have to contribute, it's more up to the woman than it is the man whether she climaxes. I'm not saying he should just get his and be done, but expecting a man to make a woman climax (or vice versa) is unreasonable.

If you want to continue this discussion, we can take it to private messages. I don't think it is contributing to the point of the thread.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

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

Post by Sarah »

harakim wrote: September 10th, 2022, 11:36 am
Sarah wrote: September 10th, 2022, 9:25 am
harakim wrote: September 10th, 2022, 8:59 am
Sarah wrote: September 10th, 2022, 8:51 am So a man after marriage, discovers that his wife likes to spend lots of money, and she routinely spends all of it every month, mostly on stuff that only she wants. Should that husband continue to trust all their money in her hands? Should he divorce her? Or should he talk to her and set some boundaries so she can earn his trust? That's all I'm advocating for when it comes to sex. If a woman isn't happy with how her husband is using her body, or his attitude or behavior when it comes to sex, she won't trust him until he changes.
I agree that you should always try and work things out. You should trust that they have good intentions and that you don't understand everything that is going on. If you don't trust that they have good intentions, then I think you should try and fix that internally and if you can't, then do them a favor and get a divorce so they can marry someone who will love them. Having differences and trusting that the other person wants to work them out with you is the key.
I would say, if a woman isn't happy with how her husband is using her body, or his attitude or behavior when it comes to sex, then she should make that clear and set some boundaries. But if she doesn't trust that he wants what's best for her, then their relationship is on the fast track to nowhere.
how can she set boundaries and talk to her husband about his behavior or attitude, when all she's thinking is that she is the problem and is just not attracted to him enough?
This is exactly my point. Making assumptions and not talking about an issue to find out the truth is going to lead to mistrust which lead to the death of a marriage.
Sarah wrote: September 10th, 2022, 9:25 am Subconsciously she doesn't trust him, because his communication of disappointment shows that he's thinking only of himself in that moment. But otherwise she's bought into the untrue message that he's entitled to it, and so his selfishness is justified, which means she's the one with the problem.
This drives home the above point. In this scenario, there are a lot of ideas that are being created and supported completely in the woman's mind and the man is probably not even aware of it.
Sarah wrote: September 10th, 2022, 9:25 am She she goes on living in distrust and enduring one-sided sex because she has given up on herself, and she doesn't realize it's because she senses her husband has given up on her climaxing as well.
That is not something the man can control. While the man does have to contribute, it's more up to the woman than it is the man whether she climaxes. I'm not saying he should just get his and be done, but expecting a man to make a woman climax (or vice versa) is unreasonable.

If you want to continue this discussion, we can take it to private messages. I don't think it is contributing to the point of the thread.
(Warning. I'm going to talk about sex in explicit ways for those who don't want to read this.)

I agree that without communication about these things, the marriage will spiral downward as the resentment can build on both sides. But for example, what if a husband tries to help his wife climax and she can't, and he comes to her with exactly what you just said, that he's doing all he can and it must be her problem. That's what I'm talking about, that words like that give the impression that the husband has given up on thinking he needs to do anything differently, and internally she feels she can't trust that she will enjoy sex with him because she has this problem. She may feel he can't be trusted to keep helping patiently, because he sees it as his wife's problem. I can tell you friend, that I went from never climaxing with sex to climaxing every single time, and what the husband does makes all the difference. She does need to be mentally focused at receiving the pleasure from him to relax etc. But husband effort is how it gets done!

What makes it hard is that a wife often can't just tell you what she wants or needs. You both need to experiment together. A husband shouldn't assume that a wife knows how to climax. But he needs to stay positive and encouraging, and not make his wife feel it is her problem when his role is to GIVE her sex. She gets easily turned off (at least I do) if it seems like her husband is more focused on his own passions than he is on her really enjoying the entire experience.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

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

Post by Sarah »

Yeah I just noticed your last line. We can do that. But I'll leave my post up in case others out there want to join the discussion. Feel free to pm me.

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2826

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

Post by FrankOne »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 10th, 2022, 6:38 am I figured eventually the liberal modern LDS female chorus would kick in, and it has. Now it’s definitely same story, different thread — and the absolutist narrative that no woman would EVER choose this; plural marriage breaks all hearts, EVERY TIME; there are ZERO women who have EVER had a good experience and/or would EVER say ANYTHING positive about plural marriage; I will NEVER share a man, and; the ultimate classic: It’s all about sex, Sex, SEX; Men just want more sex. That is ALWAYS what it’s all about. Once again, the age-old biases are on full display.

So, with all that in mind, let’s go ahead and get a little bit uncomfortable and ask a few basic, deeper questions about sex and reproductive capacity , since that has so much to do with this whole equation.

Once a person takes a step back, and starts asking some serious “Why” questions, things might really start to get interesting.

Why, for example does a healthy man’s reproductive life expectancy last, on average, about 20 years longer than a woman’s? Why do males virtually always have stronger sex drive than females? Why is it typically so much easier for a man to become aroused and experience sexual climax?

Why did God create and design things this way? Wouldn’t a whole lot of things be so much easier if men experienced male menopause at about the same time as women? Since they don’t, wouldn’t it make life so much easier if men were simply castrated about age 55? Isn’t it true that mens’ testicles really only complicate things and get them into trouble after that? Wouldn’t castration make things so much simpler?
^
at the most fundamental level, it's emotion attacking reason. Reason is offensive and evil according to the modern mindset. Most don't even understand what I'm saying.

Mamabear
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3351

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

Post by Mamabear »

I read recently another man’s journal entry that before Joseph’s death, he admitted that spiritual wifery was wrong and that he regretted the practice. Does anyone know what I’m referring to? I can’t find it.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

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

Post by Sarah »

FrankOne wrote: September 10th, 2022, 5:14 pm
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 10th, 2022, 6:38 am I figured eventually the liberal modern LDS female chorus would kick in, and it has. Now it’s definitely same story, different thread — and the absolutist narrative that no woman would EVER choose this; plural marriage breaks all hearts, EVERY TIME; there are ZERO women who have EVER had a good experience and/or would EVER say ANYTHING positive about plural marriage; I will NEVER share a man, and; the ultimate classic: It’s all about sex, Sex, SEX; Men just want more sex. That is ALWAYS what it’s all about. Once again, the age-old biases are on full display.

So, with all that in mind, let’s go ahead and get a little bit uncomfortable and ask a few basic, deeper questions about sex and reproductive capacity , since that has so much to do with this whole equation.

Once a person takes a step back, and starts asking some serious “Why” questions, things might really start to get interesting.

Why, for example does a healthy man’s reproductive life expectancy last, on average, about 20 years longer than a woman’s? Why do males virtually always have stronger sex drive than females? Why is it typically so much easier for a man to become aroused and experience sexual climax?

Why did God create and design things this way? Wouldn’t a whole lot of things be so much easier if men experienced male menopause at about the same time as women? Since they don’t, wouldn’t it make life so much easier if men were simply castrated about age 55? Isn’t it true that mens’ testicles really only complicate things and get them into trouble after that? Wouldn’t castration make things so much simpler?
^
at the most fundamental level, it's emotion attacking reason. Reason is offensive and evil according to the modern mindset. Most don't even understand what I'm saying.
If it's more reasonable for men to have multiple wives, why did the Lord command Lehi to only have one wife?

simpleton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3074

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

Post by simpleton »

Sarah wrote: September 8th, 2022, 5:03 pm
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 8th, 2022, 2:38 pm
Sarah wrote: September 8th, 2022, 11:28 am
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 8th, 2022, 11:22 am Yes, that is the accepted narrative, whether God had anything to do with any change of policy and/ or practice or not. And there does not appear to be any evidence of a a revelatory basis that He did. So, as with so many things, at the end of the day, what we have is mortal men relying on the arm of flesh, with little evidence to the contrary.
No evidence? How about WW's testimony of what the Lord told him and showed him?
I have to run out now, but perhaps I should post his words when I return.
I assume this is the "evidence" you must be referring to:

https://historyofmormonism.com/2010/03/ ... evelation/
During the period of the extreme and unrelenting prosecutions under the anti-polygamy acts of Congress, President Wilford Woodruff spent much of his time among the churches in Arizona and southern Utah. On January 26, 1880, having retired for some days in the mountains, fasting and praying, he obtained important revelations from the Lord concerning the work of the Twelve Apostles and events which would happen affecting both the Church and the nation. These were submitted to President John Taylor and the Council of the Apostles and were accepted by them as profitable for doctrine, for comfort, for light as to the future, and for encouragement in the work of the ministry. Following is President Woodruff’s account of receiving revelation.

During the month of January, 1880, I was at Sunset, Arizona, with Brother Lot Smith and the brethren with him who were trying to establish a Branch of the United Order at that place. At this time the Government, through its officers, were using every means in its power to enforce the Edmunds-Tucker and anti-polygamy law with the evident intent on the part of the officers to break us up as an organized community. Being away from President Taylor and my Quorum, I felt deeply distressed in mind concerning our conditions as a people. While thus exercised I went into “the Wilderness”, a region of country called by this name, situated about forty miles west of Sunset, and while there I stopped with two young men who were herding sheep belonging to the people of Sunset. I remained with them ten days, reading the revelations of God as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, and praying fervently unto the Lord to reveal to me His mind and will concerning Zion. On retiring to bed on the night of the 25th of January, 1880, I found myself wrapt in vision, and the next morning the following revelation was given to me of the Lord which I wrote at the time:

Thus saith the Lord unto my servant, Wilford Woodruff, I have heard thy prayer and will answer thy petition. I will make known unto thee my will concerning the nations who encumber the land of promise and also concerning Zion and her inhabitants.

I have already revealed my will concerning this nation through the mouth of my servant Joseph, who sealed his testimony with his own blood, which testimony has been in force upon all the world from the hour of his death.

What I the Lord have revealed in that testament and decreed upon this nation and upon all the nations of the earth, shall be fulfilled, saith the Lord of hosts. I the Lord have spoken and will be obeyed. My purposes shall be fulfilled upon this nation and no power shall stay My Hand. The hour is at the door when My wrath and indignation will be poured out upon the wicked of the nations.

Their murders, blasphemies, lying, whoredoms, and abominations have come up before my face and before the heavens, and the wrath of my indignation is full.

I have decreed plagues to go forth and waste my enemies, and not many years hence they shall not be left to pollute my heritage.

The devil is ruling over his kingdom and my spirit has no place in the hearts of the rulers of this nation, and the devil stirs them up to defy my power and to make war upon my Saints. Therefore let mine Apostles and mine Elders who are faithful obey my commandments which are already written for their profit and guidance.

Thus saith the Lord unto My servant, John Taylor, and My servant Wilford Woodruff, and My servant, Orson Pratt, and to all the residue of mine Apostles; Have you not gone forth in My name without purse or scrip and declared the Gospel of life and salvation unto this nation and the nations of the earth and warned them of the judgments which are to come as you have been moved upon by the power of the Holy Ghost and the inspiration of the Lord?

You have done this year by year for a whole generation, as men count time. Therefore your garments are clean of the blood of this generation and especially of this nation.

Therefore, as I have said in a former commandment, so I the Lord say again unto My Apostles: Go ye alone by yourselves, whether in heat or in cold and cleanse your feet in water, pure water, it matters not whether it be by the running streams, or in your closets; but leave these testimonies before the Lord and the heavenly hosts; and when you have all done this, then gather yourselves together in your Holy places and clothe yourselves with the robes of the Holy Priesthood and there offer up your prayers according to my Holy Law.

Let him who presides be mouth and kneel at the Holy altar, and there let mine Apostles bring all these testimonies before my face and before the heavenly hosts and before the justified spirits made perfect. And thus saith the Lord unto you, mine apostles, when you bring these testimonies before me, let them be presented by name as far as the Spirit shall present them unto you: The Presidents of the United States, the Supreme Court, the Cabinet, the Senate and Houses of Congress of the United States, the Governors of the States and Territories, the judges and others sent unto you, and all men and persons who have taken any part in persecuting you or bringing distress upon you or your families, or who have sought your lives, or sought to hinder you from keeping my commandments or from enjoying the rights which the constitutional laws of the land guarantee unto you.

And what I the Lord say unto you, mine Apostles, I also say unto my servants- the Seventies, the High Priests, the Elders, the Priests and all my servants who are pure in heart and who have borne testimony unto the nations. Let them go forth and cleanse their feet in pure water and bear testimony of it unto their Father who is in heaven.

And then, saith the Lord unto mine Apostles and mine Elders, when ye do these things with purity of heart, I the Lord will hear your prayers and am bound by oath and covenant to defend you and fight your battles.

As I have said in a former commandment, it is not my will that mine Elders should fight the battles of Zion, for I will fight your battles.

Nevertheless, let no man be afraid to lay down his life for my sake, for he that layeth down his life for my sake shall find it again and have eternal life.

The nation is ripened in iniquity and the cup of the wrath of mine indignation is full and I will not stay my hand in judgments upon this nation or the nations of the earth.

I have decreed wars and judgments upon the wicked and my wrath and indignation are about to be poured out upon them and the wicked and rebellious shall know that I am God.

As I the Lord have spoken so will I fulfill. I will spare none who remain in Babylon, but I will burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts. As I the Lord have suffered, so will I put all enemies under my feet. For I the Lord utter my word and it shall be obeyed.

And the day of wrath and indignation shall come upon the wicked.

And I say again, woe unto that nation or house or people who seek to hinder my people from obeying the Patriarchal law of Abraham, which leadeth to Celestial Glory, which has been revealed unto my Saints through the mouth of my servant Joseph, for whosoever doeth these things shall be damned, saith the Lord of Hosts, and shall be broken up and wasted away from under heaven by the judgments which I have sent forth, and which shall not return unto me void.

And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed, and with famine and plagues and earthquakes and the thunder of heaven and the vivid lightenings shall this nation and the nations of the earth be made to feel the chastening hand of an Almighty God until they are broken up and destroyed and wasted away from under heaven, and no power can stay my hand. Therefore, let the wicked tremble; let them that blaspheme my name hold their lips, for destruction will swiftly overtake them.

All that I the Lord have spoken through the mouths of my Prophets and Apostles since the world began, concerning the last dispensation and fullness of times, concerning my Church, which has been called out of the wilderness of darkness and error, concerning the Zion and kingdom of God and concerning Babylon the great, and what I have spoken through the mouth of my servant Joseph, shall all be fulfilled.

And though the heaven and earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall be fulfilled, saith the Lord.

These revelations and testimonies are before you. Let my Saints search the Word of the Lord and treasure up wisdom and be prepared for that which is to come.

As I have decreed, so shall my judgments begin at the House of God.

There are those in my Church who have a name among you who are adulterers and adulteresses, and those who blaspheme my name and those who love and make a lie, and those who revel and drink with the drunken.

If they do not speedily repent of this wickedness and abomination, they should be severed from the ordinances of my house, saith the Lord.

There are many who have need to repent, whose hearts are set upon the things of this world, who aspire to the honors of men and do not honor the Priesthood, nor seek to build up the Kingdom of God as they should. Neither do they learn and comprehend:

That the rights of the Priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

Such should repent and turn unto the Lord, and seek for the Holy Spirit to guide them.

Judgments will begin upon my house, and from thence will they go forth unto the world and the wicked cannot escape.

Blessed are the pure in heart for my blessings await them in this life and eternal life in the world to come.

Thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant and Apostles who dwell in the flesh. Fear ye not your enemies. Let not your hearts be troubled. I am in your midst. I am your advocate with the Father. I have given mine angels charge concerning you. Mine eyes are upon you and the eyes of your Heavenly Father and the Heavenly Hosts and all justified spirits made perfect are watching over you. Your works are manifest before the face of my servants who have sealed their testimony with their blood, and before all my servants of the Apostles whom I have taken unto myself.

The veil is taken from off their faces and they know your works. They await your coming when you have finished your testimony in the flesh. Therefore, be ye faithful until I come. My coming is at the door.

Call upon the Lord in mighty prayer, ask and you shall receive. Whenever you agree as touching anything and ask the Father in my name, it shall be given unto you. Seek diligently to build up Zion and to magnify your high calling and your enemies shall not prevail over you. Zion shall not be moved out of her place. Zion shall prevail against her enemies.

My people shall not be hindered in the building of my temples unto my Holy Name, if they will hearken unto my voice and do as I command them.

The blood of my servants Joseph and Hyrum and of mine Apostles and Elders which has been shed for the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, cries from the ground for vengeance upon the nation which has shed their blood. But their blood shall speedily be avenged and shall cease to cry unto me, for the hour of God’s judgment is fully come and shall be poured out without measure upon the wicked.

But hearken and hear, O ye Apostles, Elders and people of my Church, to the Word of the Lord concerning you, that for all the blessing that I will pour out upon you and the inhabitants of Zion and the judgments and destruction upon the wicked, I will be inquired of by you to ask the Father in my name to do and to perform these things for you as I told all the House of Israel by my servant Moses, that they should ask at my hand for all those blessings which I the Lord have promised unto Israel in the latter days.

And as I the Lord ordained mine Apostles who were with me in my ministry and promised them that they should sit upon twelve thrones, judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel, so I say unto you mine Apostles, who I have raised up in these last days that I have ordained you to bear record of my name, and of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles first, and then to the House of Israel. I have also ordained you to sit upon thrones and judge the Gentiles and the inhabitants of the earth unto whom you have borne testimony of my name in the day and generation in which you live. Therefore, how great is your calling and responsibility before me. Therefore, gird up the loins of your minds and magnify your calling in the fear of God, and prepare ye for the coming of the Son of Man, which is nigh at the door.

No man knoweth the day nor the hour, but the signs of both heaven and earth indicate His coming, as promised by the mouths of my disciples; the fig tree is leafing and the hour is nigh. Therefore, prepare yourselves, O ye Saints of the Most High God, with oil in your lamps, for blessed is he that watcheth for the coming of the Son of Man.

Again, hear ye the Word of the Lord, O ye mine Apostles whom I have chosen in these last days to bear record of my name and lead my people Israel until the coming of the Son of Man.

I the Lord have raised up unto you my servant John Taylor to preside over you and to be a lawgiver unto my Church. He has mingled his blood with that of the martyred Prophets. Nevertheless, while I have taken my servants Joseph and Hyrum unto myself, I have preserved my servant John Taylor for a wise purpose in me.

I have also taken many others of the Apostles unto myself, for I take whom I will take, and preserve in life whom I will preserve, according to the counsel of mine own will.

And while my servant John Taylor is your President, I wish to ask the rest of my servants of the Apostles the question, although you have one to preside over your Quorum, which is the order of God in all generations, do you not, all of you, hold the apostleship, which is the highest authority ever given to men on earth? You do. Therefore you hold in common the Keys of the Kingdom of God in all the world.

You each of you have the power to unlock the veil of eternity and hold converse with God the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ and to have the ministrations of angels

It is your right, privilege and duty to inquire of the Lord as to His mind and will concerning yourselves and the inhabitants of Zion and their interests.

And whenever any one of you receives the word of the Lord, let it be written and presented in your councils and whatever by united consent you deem wisdom to be presented unto the people, let it be presented by the President, my servant John Taylor, as the word of the Lord. In this way you will uphold him and strengthen his hands, as all the burden should not lie upon one man.

For thus saith the Lord, all mine Apostles should be full of the Holy Ghost, of inspiration and revelation to know the mind and will of God and be prepared for that which is to come. Therefore let mine Apostles keep my commandments and obey my voice and the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.

Fear not, for lo, I am with you until I come and I come quickly. Even so, Amen.
If this is the only revelatory basis for any direction given by God as to what the Church was supposed to do regarding the practice of plural marriage as referred to as "the Patriarchal Law of Abraham, that leadeth to the Celestial Kingdom," what is your interpretation of the Revelation?
Before I dive into this 1880 revelation you quoted, I want to ask the question - Did Joseph or Brigham or anyone else, receive a revelation from the Lord in which the Lord commanded that all the members of the church live the Laws of Abraham and Sarah? As far as I can tell, the answer is no, but rather this was a Law revealed to Joseph that he and Emma were commanded to live this Law of the Priesthood themselves. Joseph had an "appointment" as it states in 132, to restore all things, and we have at least a few people saying that Joseph was commanded to introduce the "Law" to his brethren (and he went about doing so by first asking for their wives). But we never see then entire church commanded in a revelation to live it. Brigham did command it at different times in his Presidency (I think towards the end he didn't), but Young also didn't reveal all that he knew about the Law, as is evidenced by him saying that that a wife could go to someone higher in authority without the need for a divorce, and he had not revealed that part of the Law to everyone. So BY decided what parts of the Law should be lived, going off of what Joseph was permitting them to do.

This is why I think Pres. Hinkley was correct when he said that the saints were permitted to live it. They indeed were permitted to live this part of the Law of the Priesthood, the taking of additional wives, because it had been introduced to Brigham, and Brigham now held the Keys of Authority, and so whomever he sealed was sealed, and whomever he loosed he could loose. It was up to him (and his council if he did counsel), how the keys were to be used and who could be sealed to who. The Lord cares more about unity and progression of the group as a whole rather than what stage they are at. And they had a lot further to go in their progression in living this "Law of Abraham" or Law of the Priesthood which included the Law of Sarah.

Brigham said he was shown in Winter Quarters the "Order of Enoch" and how the people should be organized in a family capacity, and that they were not now organized in that way. He said he tried to say a thing or two about it to the other apostles, but it "wouldn't touch a man." Brigham also made comments like this:
December 16, 1860: Part of remarks of Brigham Young at morning meeting:
He also spoke of the Celestial Law; said we should not have the celestial law
revealed to us until we got into the Celestial Kingdom. There is a law
belonging to every kingdom. What kingdom are we in? We are not even in a
Terrestrial Kingdom. Then let us not talk about keeping a celestial law until
we get into a Celestial Kingdom--at least until we can keep the Law of the
Gospel while in a Telestial Kingdom.
So Brigham wasn't in a hurry to get to the ideal order - the Order of Enoch, because he felt the saints weren't ready for it. And in my opinion, the Order of Enoch is not just about the giving and receiving of substance, but of wives or spouses.

He even received a revelation in 1874 from the Lord that commanded him to organize the people into the Order of Enoch. And afterwards in the few years before he died, he talked a lot about the United Order, but the orders fell through and nothing progressed.

Here's another quote:
(The following is from the article, "An Economic Analysis of the United Order")

...Brigham Young himself was not immune to this reluctance.
Although he had always stressed the importance of going
wholeheartedly into the order and had indicated his desire to do
so, in August 1874 speaking in Lehi Young was forced to admit
that
"I am laboring under a certain embarrassment and so are many others
with regard to deeding property and that is to find men who
know what to do with property when it is in their hands. When
this factory at Provo can go into the hands of men who know what to do with it, it will go. When my factory in Salt Lake County can
go into the hands of men who know what to do with it, it will
go 24
When Brigham Young died three years later such men still had
not been found...
You have Eliza Snow saying this:
1872
I was very much pleased with the conference. In speaking of the people living so far beneath their privileges, President Young has said at three different times, “Yet out from this people the Lord will call a people that will do his will.” I have wondered how, when, and to whom is this call to be made. In his remarks one day during conference, President Young spoke of establishing a colony composed of those who had sufficient confidence in each other to bind themselves in an indissoluble band.14 Those that cannot see the order of Enoch will think it an excitement caused by the brethren. It rejoices my heart to see that God is working in our midst, and who are prepared to enter in? Those who have abided the whole law. When we all come to examine ourselves, we shall find the weaknesses of the flesh.
Here's another quote from BY:
Conference, April 6th 1862I have had visions and revelations instructing me how to organize this people so that they can live like the family of heaven, but I cannot do it while so much selfishness and wickedness reign in the Elders of Israel. Many would make of the greatest blessings a curse to them, as they do now the plurality of wives—the abuse of that principle will send thousands to hell. There are many great and glorious privileges for the people, which they are not prepared to receive. How long it will be before they are prepared to enjoy the blessings God has in store for them, I know not—it has not been revealed to me. I know the Lord wants to pour blessings upon this people, but were he to do so in their present ignorance, they would not know what to do with them. They can receive only a very little and that must be administered to them with great care.
So with all that said about the Order of Enoch and the failure of the saints to become one and have more revealed to them about the Law of the Priesthood (Law of Abraham and Sarah), let's look at WW's 1880 revelation.

The Lord speaks of the nations hindering the living of the Law of Abraham, but we learn in section 132 that there is more about this Law of the Priesthood, and Law of Sarah than that which we have. And think about it - the Law of Sarah is about giving a spouse to another, but the Law of Abraham is just about receiving? We have a lot more to be revealed about this law so that the giving and receiving go both ways. The Lord is allowing the saints to live some parts of the Law because they desire it, and he is also waiting, and giving them a chance to seek for more light and live the laws and commandments he's already given them. He's waiting for them to progress into living the Laws of Stewardship and Consecration, which progresses into the giving and receiving of spouses. It is because they did not progress, that the Lord gives Woodruff the revelation about what he is going to let happen.

From the revelation:
These revelations and testimonies are before you. Let my Saints search the Word of the Lord and treasure up wisdom and be prepared for that which is to come.

As I have decreed, so shall my judgments begin at the House of God.

There are those in my Church who have a name among you who are adulterers and adulteresses, and those who blaspheme my name and those who love and make a lie, and those who revel and drink with the drunken.

If they do not speedily repent of this wickedness and abomination, they should be severed from the ordinances of my house, saith the Lord.

There are many who have need to repent, whose hearts are set upon the things of this world, who aspire to the honors of men and do not honor the Priesthood, nor seek to build up the Kingdom of God as they should. Neither do they learn and comprehend:

That the rights of the Priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.


Such should repent and turn unto the Lord, and seek for the Holy Spirit to guide them.

Judgments will begin upon my house, and from thence will they go forth unto the world and the wicked cannot escape.
The Lord is warning them that they need to repent and that judgments are about to begin with His house. He then tells them to do this:
Call upon the Lord in mighty prayer, ask and you shall receive. Whenever you agree as touching anything and ask the Father in my name, it shall be given unto you. Seek diligently to build up Zion and to magnify your high calling and your enemies shall not prevail over you. Zion shall not be moved out of her place. Zion shall prevail against her enemies.

My people shall not be hindered in the building of my temples unto my Holy Name, if they will hearken unto my voice and do as I command them.
Hmm, that sounds familiar - they will not be hindered in the building of temples if they hearken unto the voice of the Lord. And that's exactly what we see later with what WW is shown, that they need to stop the practice if they want to keep the temples.

He tells then that if they can simply counsel together and become united about anything - he will help them. But they did not do this. They did not become one, nor seek diligently to build up Zion according to the principles they were given, and so their enemies were allowed to overcome them as they tried to live only part of a Celestial Law.
Therefore let mine Apostles keep my commandments and obey my voice and the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.
The Lord allowed the saints to be overcome by their enemies for a reason. It was because they were not obeying all of the Lord's commandments he had given them. This is the reason Woodruff received the revelation he did.
The above is a good quick analysis of what went wrong with mormondom. We rejected the higher laws givin to us for our advancement. And we have been on a downhill slope ever since. Now, (as a whole) we are drowning in all kinds of wickedness.
Judgements, I believe, are truly about to begin "upon My House first".

simpleton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3074

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

Post by simpleton »

Sarah wrote: September 9th, 2022, 10:12 am
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 9th, 2022, 6:46 am Now, I really think some people are starting to get past the surface, and all the inherent negative biases and social conditioning in the Church, and starting to finally get down to some actual brass tacks in this discussion.

And it is interesting that in this discussion we have not yet gotten the steady LDS female chorus (endless, single-dimensional refrain) of, come He!! or High Water “I WILL NEVER SHARE A MAN”!

But, unfortunately, it is mostly men participating in the discussion, with Sarah as essentially the only woman offering much “but this is the Church’s current position” push-back.

It is truly interesting how when it comes to the vast majority of the things of this World, at this point, the Church seems completely content to just be swept away by the World, but when it comes to “The Patriarchal Law of Abraham that Leadeth to the Celestial Kingdom,” and even the principle of telestial plural marriage — which so many others are starting to see the merit of — the Church and its members appear to be prepared to resist as if plural marriage is the single worst plague since the world began — worse than abortion, same-sex marriage, single mothers, fatherless children and families, etc. The Church would rather see an entire ocean of single mothers than any plural marriage or actual paternal responsibility and support.

It is interesting.
Yes, you have a handful of pro-polygamist men on here who agree with you, who beat the same Isaiah drum of - "look, you will have to share your husband because 86% of men in Zion are going to die!" No wonder the women don't want to participate in the discussion.

I don't think finding a few women online who want polygamy is evidence of much of anything.

This is no different than what happened in the early days of the church. They all thought because the gospel was coming forth and the Lord had revealed to Joseph the principle of multiple wives, that it's purpose was to fulfill this prophecy in Isaiah, and have this principle in place for when all the men would die very shortly. It was preached by every missionary to hurry and get sealed to the man with the highest authority you could find before the world ended. It was preached over the pulpit that this Isaiah prophecy would soon be fulfilled and the Mormons would be ready. They even wrote a little ditty about this theme that was sung by the saints. Yet, they got ahead of themselves apparently. If anything we can say that the saints already fulfilled the prophecy!

I'm open to multiple interpretations of this scripture, but this last time I was reading it, what came to my mind was this - every time Isaiah speaks of "the daughter of Zion" singular, we all know that he is talking about Israel as a whole or as a group. So when he talks about daughters of Zion, I think he is pointing more to individuals within the group and describing the choices of each member, but these descriptions and warnings can apply to individuals of both genders within the group just like we know that "daughter of Zion" is a description of everyone. The description of their judgment is a description of slavery.

Here's some quotes from the student manual:
(13-22) Isaiah 3:24–26. The Fruits of Transgression upon the Daughters of Zion

The prophet contrasts their former beauty with the results of judgment. Because of their wickedness, the beauty, the pride, and the fashion will become tragedy, disaster, and slavery. The girdle in verse 24 was the sash used to fasten the outer clothing. Keil and Delitzsch showed that the “rent” which was to replace it was the rope used to bind slaves. Sackcloth was black goat’s hair worn at times of great mourning. The “burning” refers to the branding that often accompanied one’s being made a slave. Thus Keil and Delitzsch translated this verse: “And instead of balmy scent there will be mouldiness, and instead of the sash, a rope, and instead of artistic ringlets a baldness, and instead of the dress cloak a frock of sackcloth, branding instead of beauty” (Commentary, 7:1:147).

(13-23) Isaiah 4:1. “Take Away Our Reproach”
Verse 1 of chapter four seems to continue the thought of chapter three rather than to begin a new thought. This phrase suggests that the condition mentioned in verse 1 is caused by the scarcity of men, a result of the devastation of war mentioned in Isaiah 3:25–26. The conditions under which these women would accept this marriage (“eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel”) are contrary to the Lord’s order of marriage (see Exodus 21:10; D&C 132:58–61). To be unmarried and childless in ancient Israel was a disgrace (see Genesis 30:23; Luke 1:25). So terrible would conditions in those times be that women would offer to share a husband with others and expect no material support from him, if they could claim they were married to him.
So the thought I had was that this number 7 represents completion or fullness. And what is completed? It is the shame and disgrace that will come to all of Israel.
In that day it was very shameful to be childless or unmarried in their culture, and so Isaiah is using an example of the epitome of shame in their culture to represent the complete shaming these people will have. Their shame will be complete and fulfilled. Do you really think 86% of the men in Zion are going to die?

No doubt after a period of war, there will be more women than men, but history shows us that polygamy isn't always the natural result. I was looking up polygamy and war, and most of the links were about how the practice leads to war, but this article talks about women in Europe after WW1 and how they simply had to wait longer for marriage and married younger men - essentially waiting for the boys to grow up. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-econo ... -in-europe
Absolutely yes, if not even a higher percentage.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

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

Post by Sarah »

Maybe Kody Brown has been reading my posts 😲

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainmen ... rown.html/

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

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

Post by Luke »

Mamabear wrote: September 11th, 2022, 7:38 am I read recently another man’s journal entry that before Joseph’s death, he admitted that spiritual wifery was wrong and that he regretted the practice. Does anyone know what I’m referring to? I can’t find it.
It was William Marks and other early RLDS people who claimed this.

Also Joseph Smith’s niece Mary believed this.

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2826

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

Post by FrankOne »

Sarah wrote: September 11th, 2022, 7:51 am
FrankOne wrote: September 10th, 2022, 5:14 pm
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 10th, 2022, 6:38 am I figured eventually the liberal modern LDS female chorus would kick in, and it has. Now it’s definitely same story, different thread — and the absolutist narrative that no woman would EVER choose this; plural marriage breaks all hearts, EVERY TIME; there are ZERO women who have EVER had a good experience and/or would EVER say ANYTHING positive about plural marriage; I will NEVER share a man, and; the ultimate classic: It’s all about sex, Sex, SEX; Men just want more sex. That is ALWAYS what it’s all about. Once again, the age-old biases are on full display.

So, with all that in mind, let’s go ahead and get a little bit uncomfortable and ask a few basic, deeper questions about sex and reproductive capacity , since that has so much to do with this whole equation.

Once a person takes a step back, and starts asking some serious “Why” questions, things might really start to get interesting.

Why, for example does a healthy man’s reproductive life expectancy last, on average, about 20 years longer than a woman’s? Why do males virtually always have stronger sex drive than females? Why is it typically so much easier for a man to become aroused and experience sexual climax?

Why did God create and design things this way? Wouldn’t a whole lot of things be so much easier if men experienced male menopause at about the same time as women? Since they don’t, wouldn’t it make life so much easier if men were simply castrated about age 55? Isn’t it true that mens’ testicles really only complicate things and get them into trouble after that? Wouldn’t castration make things so much simpler?
^
at the most fundamental level, it's emotion attacking reason. Reason is offensive and evil according to the modern mindset. Most don't even understand what I'm saying.
If it's more reasonable for men to have multiple wives, why did the Lord command Lehi to only have one wife?
You're not understanding my point.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

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

Post by Luke »

Funny how there’s people who claim to believe in plural marriage yet can’t stop complaining about how terrible plural marriage is…

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

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

Post by Sarah »

Luke wrote: September 11th, 2022, 3:53 pm Funny how there’s people who claim to believe in plural marriage yet can’t stop complaining about how terrible plural marriage is…
Oh Luke, you know your position is much more illogical. You said you saw what looked like polyandry or polyamory in heaven.

The benefits of plural marriage should go to both genders, otherwise the principle is incomplete and being abused. The TEST for the husband who has this commandment or privilege, is to see if he will awaken to understand what he can give to his wives and his brethren after he has been GIVEN a gift from his wife or the Lord. In order for him to receive a gift correctly, he needs to give something in return.

With Abraham and Jacob, they didn't go out seeking wives because they wanted more wives. It was special commandment to Abraham and Sarah, and a test, and the same for Joseph and Emma. You haven't answered my question. If taking multiple wives is the more reasonable and preferred way, why did the Lord command Lehi to only have one wife?

User avatar
M249Gunner
captain of 100
Posts: 985

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

Post by M249Gunner »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 8th, 2022, 11:01 am
EvanLM wrote: September 8th, 2022, 10:54 am and there are women who are changing genders, lesbian, interested in bestiality, interested in threesomes, interested in polyandry, and raising children in all of these situations and LGBTQ and isn't there about 80 gendersnow? so . . .what's your point?

really stupid thread in this modern world
Fair enough. What isn’t stupid in this modern world? Why don’t you bring us that list.
Here are a few things for your list (not in any kind of order):
Being proficient with weapons. Being healthy. Keeping your covenants. Being prepared for the future. Educating yourself. Being debt free. Having some savings. :-)

HVDC
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2600

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

Post by HVDC »

The truth is.

People will do whatever everyone else is doing.

That's why non-reproductive recreational sex is encouraged and promoted in schools and movies.

And now churches as well.

The masses of asses then emulate and popularize these behaviors as though they were exercizing "free choice" instead of simply following the leader.

We need to set our feelings aside and begin to question why, among all of the possible choices, is traditional pologamy not legal to practice.

Sexual desire is like air in a balloon.

You can twist it, bend it and even try to squish it and it just moves some where else.

But won't look like a traditional balloon.

More like a Picasso painting.

Ugly.

Like pedophilia and drag queens.

The future belongs to those who are fruitful and fecund.

Our feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

The past is dead.

The future is being determined now.

Don't wait for the church to tell you what you can do.

They wait for permission too.

Set the pace.

Follow the crowd.

Or get left behind.

Your choice.

Choose wisely.

Your posterity depends on it.

Sir H

User avatar
BigT
captain of 100
Posts: 739

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

Post by BigT »

Mamabear wrote: September 11th, 2022, 7:38 am I read recently another man’s journal entry that before Joseph’s death, he admitted that spiritual wifery was wrong and that he regretted the practice. Does anyone know what I’m referring to? I can’t find it.
Grr… Can’t get image to post.

https://ibb.co/8sjd3KT

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

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

Post by Sarah »

HVDC wrote: September 12th, 2022, 6:23 am The truth is.

People will do whatever everyone else is doing.

That's why non-reproductive recreational sex is encouraged and promoted in schools and movies.

And now churches as well.

The masses of asses then emulate and popularize these behaviors as though they were exercizing "free choice" instead of simply following the leader.

We need to set our feelings aside and begin to question why, among all of the possible choices, is traditional pologamy not legal to practice.

Sexual desire is like air in a balloon.

You can twist it, bend it and even try to squish it and it just moves some where else.

But won't look like a traditional balloon.

More like a Picasso painting.

Ugly.

Like pedophilia and drag queens.

The future belongs to those who are fruitful and fecund.

Our feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

The past is dead.

The future is being determined now.

Don't wait for the church to tell you what you can do.

They wait for permission too.

Set the pace.

Follow the crowd.

Or get left behind.

Your choice.

Choose wisely.

Your posterity depends on it.

Sir H
The question isn't so much about what kind of relationship is legal or not, because anyone can have sex with anyone and call it what they want. It's more about rewarding a type of relationship with approval, status, and privileges. Our society has chosen to reward the marriage relationship of a mongamous man and woman with those privileges, because we see it as a good thing for children and society as a whole. We want to reward and encourage this kind of family relationship. I don't think we should be rewarding any other type of relationship that wants to call itself a marriage, because that only encourages it, and nothing else has proven with fallen man to be good for society. If the saints had figured out how to live Celestial laws and plural marriage correctly, they would have achieved Zion, and wouldn't have been in need of an earthly government. But seeing that we are mixed up with spiritual Babylonians, it isn't a good idea to call marriage anything else except the Lord's standard on this earth of monogamy of one man and one woman.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 193

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

There is so, so very much more to this whole equation than meets the eye, but I don't really see the point of going too much farther with it. I do appreciate those who have added their perspectives, especially when they have been fresh perspectives.

As usual, some of the very freshest come from Sir H, including the following
The truth is.

People will do whatever everyone else is doing.

That's why non-reproductive recreational sex is encouraged and promoted in schools and movies.

And now churches as well.

* * * * * *

The future belongs to those who are fruitful and fecund.

Our feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

The past is dead.

The future is being determined now.

* * * * * *

Your choice.

Choose wisely.

Your posterity depends on it.
It is interesting to note that word "fecund" is such an ugly-sounding word, with such wonderful, important, but little-understood meaning. It is literally one of the most important purposes of life.

Before I leave off for good, though, I am going to share just a couple more thoughts.

First of all, someone, several pages back asked how many wives I have. Anyone who has followed the other plural marriage thread I started should know the answer to that question. What I am going say, though, as documented by my OP, is that there are actually young women out there, with a reproductive orientation, who are open-minded to the prospect of possible plural marriage. What I don't find is young women with both a reproductive orientation and a productive orientation. In other words, many women have some fascination and/or interest in a reproductive orientation, especially if they can continue to maintain a fully consumptive orientation, but very, very few are interested in say, an Agrarian lifestyle, where children are actually considered to be both a blessing and an asset, and women maintain both productive and reproductive roles (as is the case in most Anabaptist communities), just like men do, but to a lesser degree. The husband/father may be fully responsible for providing full financial support, for example, but in addition to bearing children, women might reasonably be expected to help tend a large garden, help do chores, possibly milk a cow, make cheese and butter, "put-up" (bottle) food, bake bread, cook, etc., and play a productive role in the whole equation. In my experience and observation, it is that side of the equation that very, very few young American women (or young Americans of either gender) are interested in. Finding any young people with any production-orientation these days is like trying to find a needle in a haystack That is part of the dilemma for an old-fashioned agrarian like me.

Now, finally, the last thought I am going to leave-off with is bound to ruffle even more feathers, but it also ties into some of what Sarah has been talking about, despite her fairly single-dimensional approach. In addition to the questions I asked before about the natural order of things, and how/why men and women are both plumbed and wired differently when it comes to sex and reproduction, including their different reproductive life spans, etc., I am now going to attempt to add a little bit more dimension to that whole equation.

One of the fundamental Laws of Nature is that eventually all truth becomes self-evident. As an example, for centuries the earth was believed to be flat, but eventually the truth became self-evident. This has been the case throughout history and will continue to be so as all truth slowly reveals itself. Although neither the Laws of Nature nor truth evolve, our understanding of them does, and truth will always be truth whether we recognize it or not. Historically, virtually all ground-breaking truth—including actual scientific truth—goes through three basic phases: first, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; third, and finally, it is accepted as being self-evident.

The reality is, there are some natural truths regarding human sexuality, reproduction and perpetuation that will eventually become self-evident. I am not going to get into all of them here, but I am going to mention what I will call the great clash or tug-of war between nature and nurture.

Although it is true that not all men (or women) are wired exactly the same, or have exactly the same needs, but subject to obvious exceptions, there are some general rules that apply, as follows:

To that end, what nature (the Natural Man -- a man’s pea-sized brain and bowling ball sized testicles) tells a man is that he should spread his seed as far and wide, and mate as often as possible, with as many partners as possible. That is, by nature, how he is instinctively wired, and that is a natural reality as real as the law of gravity. But what civilized human nurture (including religion, etc.) tells a man is that he should settle down with one woman and her children, and protect and provide for them.  There is a huge natural conflict, clash and tug-of-war between these competing forces of nature vs. nurture -- especially as men and women mature, and their natural sex drive runs in opposite directions.

And, the reality is, as general rule, and obviously speaking in generalities, one of the reality-based keys (not the only one, but an important one) to satisfying these two competing forces and keeping everything within some semblance of balance — is the man’s ability and opportunity to have and maintain an adequate/satisfying sexual outlet. If that is not part of the equation, basic human nature, just like the law of gravity, will have its due, take its course, and exact its toll. I completely understand that a woman/wife will not want to "make love" (have sex) with a man who is not meeting her emotional needs. I get that. And, hopefully a man will understand what is needed to meet his wife’s emotional needs in the process. But, if, for whatever reason, there is a deficit that results in zero physical intimacy, and these basic natural needs are completely ignored and neglected, everything will spin out of balance, and it can and will become a vicious natural cycle for which there will be natural consequences. Of course when people are in sheer survival mode, these otherwise applicable natural realities may be temporarily suspended. But otherwise, this is a natural reality every bit as real as the law of gravity. And, ignoring these realities is the functional equivalent of trying to get water to defy the law of gravity, and naturally run up hill. I don't know how many people -- and especially women and wives -- fully understand this, but they should. As I said before, for those who want to ignore these natural realities, perhaps the best solution for avoiding the natural consequences is castration.

How many can really grasp the reality-based implications for plural marriage? Think about it.
Last edited by Mangus MacLeod on September 13th, 2022, 8:40 am, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

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

Post by Sarah »

Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 12th, 2022, 4:08 pm There is so, so very much more to this whole equation than meets the eye, but I don't really see the point of going too much farther with it. I do appreciate those who have added their perspectives, especially when they have been fresh perspectives.

Before I leave off for good, though, I am going to share just a couple more thoughts.

First of all, someone, several pages back asked how many wives I have. Anyone who has followed the other plural marriage thread I started should know the answer to that question. What I am going say, though, as documented by my OP, is that there are actually young women out there, with a reproductive orientation, who are open-minded to the prospect of possible plural marriage. What I don't find is young women with both a reproductive orientation and a productive orientation. In other words, many women have some fascination and/or interest in a reproductive orientation, especially if they can continue to maintain a fully consumptive orientation, but very, very few are interested in say, an Agrarian lifestyle, where children are actually considered to be both a blessing and an asset, and women maintain both productive and reproductive roles (as is the case in most Anabaptist communities), just like men do, but to a lesser degree. The husband/father may be fully responsible for providing full financial support, for example, but in addition to bearing children, women might reasonably be expected to tend a large garden, do chores, milk a cow, make cheese and butter, "put-up" (bottle) food, bake bread, cook, etc., and play a productive role in the whole equation. In my experience and observation, it is that side of the equation that very, very few young American women are interested in. That is part of the dilemma for an old-fashioned agrarian like me.

Now, finally, the last thought I am going to leave-off with is bound to ruffle even more feathers, but it also ties into some of what Sarah has been talking about, despite her fairly single-dimensional approach. In addition to the questions I asked before about the natural order of things, and how/why men and women are both plumbed and wired differently when it comes to sex and reproduction, including their different reproductive life spans, etc., I am now going to attempt to add a little bit more dimension to that whole equation.

One of the fundamental Laws of Nature is that eventually all truth becomes self-evident. As an example, for centuries the earth was believed to be flat, but eventually the truth became self-evident. This has been the case throughout history and will continue to be so as all truth slowly reveals itself. Although neither the Laws of Nature nor truth evolve, our understanding of them does, and truth will always be truth whether we recognize it or not. Historically, virtually all ground-breaking truth—including actual scientific truth—goes through three basic phases: first, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; third, and finally, it is accepted as being self-evident.

The reality is, there are some natural truths regarding human sexuality, reproduction and perpetuation that will eventually become self-evident. I am not going to get into all of them here, but I am going to mention what I will call the great clash or tug-of war between nature and nurture.

Although it is true that not all men (or women) are wired exactly the same, or have exactly the same needs, but subject to obvious exceptions, there are some general rules that apply, as follows:

To that end, what nature (the Natural Man -- a man’s pea-sized brain and bowling ball sized testicles) tells a man is that he should spread his seed as far and wide, and mate as often as possible, with as many partners as possible. That is, by nature, how he is instinctually wired, and that is a natural reality as real as the law of gravity. But what civilized human nurture (including religion, etc.) tells a man is that he should settle down with one woman and her children, and protect and provide for them.  There is a huge natural conflict, clash and tug-of-war between these competing forces of nature vs. nurture -- especially as men and women mature, and their natural sex drive runs in opposite directions.

And, the reality is, there is only one thing that stands a chance of satisfying these two competing forces and keeping everything within some semblance of balance — and that is the man’s ability and opportunity to have and maintain an adequate/satisfying sexual outlet. If that is not part of the equation, basic human nature, just like the law of gravity, will have its due, and take its toll. This is a natural reality every bit as real as the law of gravity. And, ignoring these realities is the functional equivalent of trying to get water to defy the law of gravity, and naturally run up hill. I don't know how many people -- and especially women and wives -- understand this, but they should.
If you find a young woman who wants to have children with you and live a farm life, what is she going to do if you die and she is left alone woman with a bunch of children to feed?

If man has a natural force to deal with of needing or wanting sex, woman's is that she needs and wants things. If she has children, the needs and wants are never ending. So if you get more women and children, your family needs some more providers.

Women are not as fertile as men perhaps for a reason - we need one gender to make it happen, and one gender to protect the interests of the children, finding the best men for fatherhood and not just as sexual partners. Women are turned on by unselfishness, and those types of men make the best fathers. And besides, this time is a time to prepare to meet God and have your eye single to His glory, not to fulfilling your natural appetites. When these mortal bodies are put aside, women will no longer be cursed with weakness and limitations, and men will no longer have the negative physical side effects to deal with from feeling unsatisfied (which women get too by the way!)

Also just thought I would ask, are you by chance Fiannan? Sound kind of like him.

User avatar
Mangus MacLeod
captain of 100
Posts: 193

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

Post by Mangus MacLeod »

Sarah wrote: September 12th, 2022, 5:34 pm
Mangus MacLeod wrote: September 12th, 2022, 4:08 pm There is so, so very much more to this whole equation than meets the eye, but I don't really see the point of going too much farther with it. I do appreciate those who have added their perspectives, especially when they have been fresh perspectives.

Before I leave off for good, though, I am going to share just a couple more thoughts.

First of all, someone, several pages back asked how many wives I have. Anyone who has followed the other plural marriage thread I started should know the answer to that question. What I am going say, though, as documented by my OP, is that there are actually young women out there, with a reproductive orientation, who are open-minded to the prospect of possible plural marriage. What I don't find is young women with both a reproductive orientation and a productive orientation. In other words, many women have some fascination and/or interest in a reproductive orientation, especially if they can continue to maintain a fully consumptive orientation, but very, very few are interested in say, an Agrarian lifestyle, where children are actually considered to be both a blessing and an asset, and women maintain both productive and reproductive roles (as is the case in most Anabaptist communities), just like men do, but to a lesser degree. The husband/father may be fully responsible for providing full financial support, for example, but in addition to bearing children, women might reasonably be expected to tend a large garden, do chores, milk a cow, make cheese and butter, "put-up" (bottle) food, bake bread, cook, etc., and play a productive role in the whole equation. In my experience and observation, it is that side of the equation that very, very few young American women are interested in. That is part of the dilemma for an old-fashioned agrarian like me.

Now, finally, the last thought I am going to leave-off with is bound to ruffle even more feathers, but it also ties into some of what Sarah has been talking about, despite her fairly single-dimensional approach. In addition to the questions I asked before about the natural order of things, and how/why men and women are both plumbed and wired differently when it comes to sex and reproduction, including their different reproductive life spans, etc., I am now going to attempt to add a little bit more dimension to that whole equation.

One of the fundamental Laws of Nature is that eventually all truth becomes self-evident. As an example, for centuries the earth was believed to be flat, but eventually the truth became self-evident. This has been the case throughout history and will continue to be so as all truth slowly reveals itself. Although neither the Laws of Nature nor truth evolve, our understanding of them does, and truth will always be truth whether we recognize it or not. Historically, virtually all ground-breaking truth—including actual scientific truth—goes through three basic phases: first, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; third, and finally, it is accepted as being self-evident.

The reality is, there are some natural truths regarding human sexuality, reproduction and perpetuation that will eventually become self-evident. I am not going to get into all of them here, but I am going to mention what I will call the great clash or tug-of war between nature and nurture.

Although it is true that not all men (or women) are wired exactly the same, or have exactly the same needs, but subject to obvious exceptions, there are some general rules that apply, as follows:

To that end, what nature (the Natural Man -- a man’s pea-sized brain and bowling ball sized testicles) tells a man is that he should spread his seed as far and wide, and mate as often as possible, with as many partners as possible. That is, by nature, how he is instinctually wired, and that is a natural reality as real as the law of gravity. But what civilized human nurture (including religion, etc.) tells a man is that he should settle down with one woman and her children, and protect and provide for them.  There is a huge natural conflict, clash and tug-of-war between these competing forces of nature vs. nurture -- especially as men and women mature, and their natural sex drive runs in opposite directions.

And, the reality is, there is only one thing that stands a chance of satisfying these two competing forces and keeping everything within some semblance of balance — and that is the man’s ability and opportunity to have and maintain an adequate/satisfying sexual outlet. If that is not part of the equation, basic human nature, just like the law of gravity, will have its due, and take its toll. This is a natural reality every bit as real as the law of gravity. And, ignoring these realities is the functional equivalent of trying to get water to defy the law of gravity, and naturally run up hill. I don't know how many people -- and especially women and wives -- understand this, but they should.
If you find a young woman who wants to have children with you and live a farm life, what is she going to do if you die and she is left alone woman with a bunch of children to feed?

If man has a natural force to deal with of needing or wanting sex, woman's is that she needs and wants things. If she has children, the needs and wants are never ending. So if you get more women and children, your family needs some more providers.

Women are not as fertile as men perhaps for a reason - we need one gender to make it happen, and one gender to protect the interests of the children, finding the best men for fatherhood and not just as sexual partners. Women are turned on by unselfishness, and those types of men make the best fathers. And besides, this time is a time to prepare to meet God and have your eye single to His glory, not to fulfilling your natural appetites. When these mortal bodies are put aside, women will no longer be cursed with weakness and limitations, and men will no longer have the negative physical side effects to deal with from feeling unsatisfied (which women get too by the way!)

Also just thought I would ask, are you by chance Fiannan? Sound kind of like him.
As far as I can tell Fiannan had moved-on before I arrived at LDSFF. I am not him. But I sure wish he was still around. I have read a number of his posts, and can see that he could often be counted-on for a fresh, open-minded perspective that is, quite frankly, fairly sorely lacking around here.

As for women not wanting to live on and/or raise children on a farm, you’re right, I see very little interest in either gender of the younger generation(s) of Americans demonstrating much interest in actual production and basic self-sufficiency. Although, in my view it is the most ideal way to raise children, and teach them responsibility, how to work, how to produce, and the most fundamental realities of life, very few young people, especially in the Mormon Church, seem to share that view.

As to the question of dying and leaving a woman and children to fend for themselves, that is a great reason to have plural wives who can work together. Most people have never had the satisfaction of seeing it in action, but I have. And, anyone who has had a chance to see many Anabaptist women in action know that they can be every bit as capable of running a farm as most men — even with children underfoot. But, they have a different mindset.

For me, the general lack of productive and reproductive orientation among the worldly American and Mormon mainstream (which are essentially one and the same) is quite troubling, and doesn’t instill much faith, hope or confidence for the future. But that’s just me.

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

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

Post by tmac »

This discussion is actually now getting interesting enough here towards the end that I'm going to chime back in.

In fact, part of it, including MacLeod's premises regarding the natural realities of human sexual and reproductive life cycles, and his tongue-in-cheek (I hope) theory about castration, etc., is interesting enough that on Sunday I had a fairly lengthy conversation with a good friend of mine, who is a very experienced Family and Marriage Counselor/Therapist. I wanted to hear his take on some of these issues. And it is interesting to say the least, especially based on what he is seeing out there in the trenches, day in and day out.

Among other things, we talked about one of his unnamed clients, a middle-aged man, who asked "what am I getting out of my marriage relationship at this point? . . . I provide everything for my wife, a house, a car, clothes, food, everything; I pay all the bills, and I try to provide some reasonable degree of companionship and emotional support -- to the extent she's even interested. . . On her side of the equation, she doesn't work or pay for anything. We're empty-nesters now, so there are no kids to look after, and there isn't even much to do around the house. We sleep in separate rooms because she hates my cpap machine. I do all my own laundry. I prepare most of my own food. I clean up after myself. But what am I getting in return? What is the quid pro quo? At this point, what am I getting out of this relationship"?

My friend said his answer was "You're getting an anchor. Your wife is still providing an anchor for your life."

And, I think that is essentially what MacLeod has been describing in terms of the "Nurture" side of the equation in the whole tug-of-war between the forces of nature and nurture in a marriage relationship. But as I have thought about it, and considered what my friend said, and my own experiences, and a lifetime of observation, what I am going to say -- and in effect offer solidarity with MacLeod -- is that a woman/wife is going to really struggle to be an effective, long-term anchor, if she reaches a point where she is not willing to offer her husband/man any physical intimacy. At that point, I essentially agree with MacLeod that her role and effectiveness as an anchor, both for the man, and to their family, becomes very tenuous. I agree that is simply a natural reality, whether people want to acknowledge it or not.

Part of the problem with the modern female mindset is that wives often think that everything their husband has is theirs, as well as his body, and the expectation of control over that. What that means is that if, for example, there is a deficit in their physical intimacy, and the husband seeks to remedy that through masturbation, for example, the wife is offended, and wants to exercise control over his body too -- often while withholding and not being willing to share her own. In other words, she wants to view everything between them to be shared and subject to her control, except her own body, which she feels like she should have absolute control of, and if she has no interest in physical intimacy, that's just tough, and should have no effect whatsoever on her entitlement to everything else. Worse yet, there are actually a growing number of women out there, including plenty within the Church, who deliberately sexualize their bodies, through everything from breast enhancement to provocative clothing, but often not for any benefit to their own husband. In many cases they are outright mocking their husbands. Can women really not see why this can be such an issue?

So, at that point, MacLeod has suggested that for the sake of everyone, men might be better off just to be castrated, to eliminate all corresponding pressures and expectations, and essentially roll-over with respect to this tug-of-war with their wives.

What I am going to suggest, however, is just the opposite, and will undoubtedly likewise ruffle plenty of feathers. But given all associated realities of the natural human reproductive cycle, and the differences between men and women, etc., what I am going to suggest, that fits very cleanly into this whole theme, both from a religious perspective, a societal perspective, and a natural reality perspective, is the Law of Sarah.

When you actually take a few steps back, and seriously consider the whole equation, it is hard to deny that the Law of Sarah appears to be perhaps the best, and most natural answer -- most consistent with natural realities -- if a woman can be prescient and unselfish enough to see it. What a particularly wise and prescient woman might realize as she starts to wane in the effectiveness of her role as an anchor in her marriage and in her family, is that employing and practicing the Law of Sarah may actually be the best option -- or perhaps better stated, the "least worst" option, for hanging on to her man, and holding both the marriage and the family together. Otherwise, there is serious risk that without an effective anchor, it is all going to crumble and fall apart.

But for those who insist on denying basic natural laws, bucking mother nature, and attempting to defy the law of gravity, there's always they option of doing everything possible to circumvent nature, and see how long it lasts.

On that score, in closing, I'm going to share one of my favorite Wendell Berry quotes:

Whether we and our religious and political leaders know it or not, Nature is party to all our deals and decisions, and she has more votes, a longer memory, and a sterner sense of justice than we do.”

Regardless of all the well-intended human nurturing and manipulation to the contrary, in the end, given enough time (because sometimes nature can move very slowly), eventually nature will ultimately and inevitably take its course.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

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

Post by Sarah »

tmac wrote: September 13th, 2022, 12:31 pm This discussion is getting interesting enough here towards the end that I'm actually going to chime back in.

In fact, part of it, including MacLeod's premises regarding the natural realities of human sexual and reproductive life cycles, and his tongue-in-cheek (I hope) theory about castration, etc., is interesting enough that on Sunday I had a fairly lengthy conversation with a good friend of mine, who is a very experienced Family and Marriage Counselor/Therapist. I wanted to hear his take on some of these issues. And it is interesting to say the least, especially based on what he is seeing out there in the trenches, day in and day out.

Among other things, we talked about one of his unnamed clients, a middle-aged man, who asked "what am I getting out of my marriage relationship at this point? . . . I provide everything for my wife, a house, a car, clothes, food, everything; I pay all the bills, and I try to provide some reasonable degree of companionship and emotional support -- to the extent she's even interested. . . On her side of the equation, she doesn't work or pay for anything. We're empty-nesters now, so there are no kids to look after, and there isn't even much to do around the house. We sleep in separate rooms because she hates my cpap machine. I do all my own laundry. I prepare most of my own food. I clean up after myself. But what am I getting in return? What is the quid pro quo? At this point, what am I getting out of this relationship"?

My friend said his answer was "You're getting an anchor. Your wife is still providing an anchor for your life."

And, I think that is essentially what MacLeod has been describing in terms of the "Nurture" side of the equation in the whole tug-of-war between the forces of nature and nurture in a marriage relationship. But as I have thought about it, and considered what my friend said, and my own experiences, and a lifetime of observation, what I am going to say -- and in effect offer solidarity with MacLeod -- is that a woman/wife is going to really struggle to be an effective, long-term anchor, if she reaches a point where she is not willing to offer her husband/man any physical intimacy. At that point, I essentially agree with MacLeod that her role and effectiveness as an anchor, both for the man, and to their family, becomes very tenuous. I agree that is simply a natural reality, whether people want to acknowledge it or not.

Part of the problem with the modern female mindset is that wives often think that everything their husband has is theirs, as well as his body, and the expectation of control over that. What that means is that if, for example, there is a deficit in their physical intimacy, and the husband seeks to remedy that through masturbation, for example, the wife is offended, and wants to exercise control over his body too -- often while withholding and not being willing to share her own. In other words, she wants to view everything between them to be shared and subject to her control, except her own body, which she feels like she should have absolute control of, and if she has no interest in physical intimacy, that's just tough, and should have no effect whatsoever on her entitlement to everything else. Worse yet, there are actually a growing number of women out there, including plenty within the Church, who deliberately sexualize their bodies, through everything from breast enhancement to provocative clothing, but often not for any benefit to their own husband. In many cases they are outright mocking their husbands. Can women really not see why this can be such an issue?

So, at that point, MacLeod has suggested that for the sake of everyone, men might be better off just to be castrated, to eliminate all corresponding pressures and expectations, and essentially roll-over with respect to this tug-of-war with their wives.

What I am going to suggest, however, is just the opposite, and will undoubtedly likewise ruffle plenty of feathers. But given all associated realities of the natural human reproductive cycle, and the differences between men and women, etc., what I am going to suggest, that fits very cleanly into this whole theme, both from a religious perspective, a societal perspective, and a natural reality perspective, is the Law of Sarah.

When you actually take a few steps back, and seriously consider the whole equation, it is hard to deny that the Law of Sarah appears to be perhaps the best, and most natural answer -- most consistent with natural realities -- if a woman can be prescient and unselfish enough to see it. What a particularly wise and prescient woman might realize as she starts to wane in the effectiveness of her role as an anchor in her marriage and in her family, is that employing and practicing the Law of Sarah may actually be the best option -- or perhaps better stated, the "least worst" option, for hanging on to her man, and holding both the marriage and the family together. Otherwise, there is serious risk that without an effective anchor, it is all going to crumble and fall apart.

But for those who insist on denying basic natural laws, bucking mother nature, and attempting to force water to run naturally uphill, there's always that option too -- do everything possible to circumvent nature, and see how long it lasts.

In closing, I'm going to share one of my favorite Wendell Berry quotes:

Whether we and our religious and political leaders know it or not, Nature is party to all our deals and decisions, and she has more votes, a longer memory, and a sterner sense of justice than we do.”

Regardless of all the well-intended human nurturing and manipulation to the contrary, in the end, given enough time (because sometimes nature can move very slowly), eventually nature will ultimately and and inevitably take its course.
I guess that's why the Lord commanded Lehi to have only one wife, so he could let nature have it's course. We can see what happens when nature takes it's course - we see that the entire idea of marriage and restraining oneself is taking a back seat to self indulgence.

A wife who doesn't want sex is like a child that doesn't want you to hug, touch, or tickle them. They are traumatized or fearful, and don't know how to enjoy it. They shouldn't be shamed or made to feel guilty about it, just as you shouldn't shame a child for not showing you affection. This is her sacred body and she doesn't feel comfortable with you touching her for perhaps many reasons. It's a husband's opportunity not to feel entitled or disappointed, but to show patience and charity, and help her learn to receive. He can start with a back rub or foot rub or give her something she appreciates, until she can learn to trust that he loves her and his love is not dependent on him receiving something. He shows his love by not showing disappointment in her lack of desire, but by seeking to understand. Of course I do realize that there are manipulative wives out there, and it's probably possible that a sexually satisfied wife may still use sex as a threat, but my guess is that's not the norm.

A wife not liking her husband masterbating shouldn't be assumed to be a case of her trying to control him. I think in most cases of porn or masterbation, the wife is still having sex with her husband to some degree. Masterbation that results from intentional stimulation is a problem of entitlement to sex. And he is going to bring that attitude of entitlement into the bedroom and also the attitude that his wife is a lost cause. No one should try to control someone else, But someone not giving you something is not controlling you or forcing you to do anything. They are simply withholding from giving, and this is fine if their motivation is right. Why should a wife receive a so-called "gift" of sex from her husband if she cannot appreciate it and it makes her feel used? Sex must be given and received at the same time, otherwise a husband should feel content to have his wife touch him and he keep his hands off of her, because he's only stimulating her and she's not getting any release from your touching. How would that make a man feel if he never ejaculated during sex. But for some reason he thinks his wife should endure this?

A wife can become entitled too, and she shouldn't, but it's often in response to husband entitlement.
If for example the husband could or would not provide any sustanance, the wife should not demand he work for her and act disappointed in him or upset, but simply stop having children with him and/or get a job. What happens is that entitlement in one leads to entitlement in the other. So if a wife gets upset about how a husband is living his life, it's probably because she has felt him getting annoyed or upset with her or vice versa.

If nature must take it's course, then it should go both ways. The wife who doesn't want to get physical with one man may get physical and be okay with another. I know of a marriage that was young and sexless for 7 years, because the wife was unwilling. They finally divorced, she ended up remarrying and having a child, so she at least was able to do it with another man and gain some perspective, which hopefully will help her. If a woman doesn't like sex, then the husband needs to figure out why and not give up helping her. Husbands should not feel entitled to more wives or children or sex from their wife. So I say, if wives can be so unselfish as to give a husband more sex with another wife, husbands can be equally generous by giving his wife another husband who can also give good gifts to her, whatever that man has to offer.
Last edited by Sarah on September 13th, 2022, 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

hyloglyph
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1043

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

Post by hyloglyph »

Sarah wrote: September 13th, 2022, 4:41 pm
tmac wrote: September 13th, 2022, 12:31 pm This discussion is getting interesting enough here towards the end that I'm actually going to chime back in.

In fact, part of it, including MacLeod's premises regarding the natural realities of human sexual and reproductive life cycles, and his tongue-in-cheek (I hope) theory about castration, etc., is interesting enough that on Sunday I had a fairly lengthy conversation with a good friend of mine, who is a very experienced Family and Marriage Counselor/Therapist. I wanted to hear his take on some of these issues. And it is interesting to say the least, especially based on what he is seeing out there in the trenches, day in and day out.

Among other things, we talked about one of his unnamed clients, a middle-aged man, who asked "what am I getting out of my marriage relationship at this point? . . . I provide everything for my wife, a house, a car, clothes, food, everything; I pay all the bills, and I try to provide some reasonable degree of companionship and emotional support -- to the extent she's even interested. . . On her side of the equation, she doesn't work or pay for anything. We're empty-nesters now, so there are no kids to look after, and there isn't even much to do around the house. We sleep in separate rooms because she hates my cpap machine. I do all my own laundry. I prepare most of my own food. I clean up after myself. But what am I getting in return? What is the quid pro quo? At this point, what am I getting out of this relationship"?

My friend said his answer was "You're getting an anchor. Your wife is still providing an anchor for your life."

And, I think that is essentially what MacLeod has been describing in terms of the "Nurture" side of the equation in the whole tug-of-war between the forces of nature and nurture in a marriage relationship. But as I have thought about it, and considered what my friend said, and my own experiences, and a lifetime of observation, what I am going to say -- and in effect offer solidarity with MacLeod -- is that a woman/wife is going to really struggle to be an effective, long-term anchor, if she reaches a point where she is not willing to offer her husband/man any physical intimacy. At that point, I essentially agree with MacLeod that her role and effectiveness as an anchor, both for the man, and to their family, becomes very tenuous. I agree that is simply a natural reality, whether people want to acknowledge it or not.

Part of the problem with the modern female mindset is that wives often think that everything their husband has is theirs, as well as his body, and the expectation of control over that. What that means is that if, for example, there is a deficit in their physical intimacy, and the husband seeks to remedy that through masturbation, for example, the wife is offended, and wants to exercise control over his body too -- often while withholding and not being willing to share her own. In other words, she wants to view everything between them to be shared and subject to her control, except her own body, which she feels like she should have absolute control of, and if she has no interest in physical intimacy, that's just tough, and should have no effect whatsoever on her entitlement to everything else. Worse yet, there are actually a growing number of women out there, including plenty within the Church, who deliberately sexualize their bodies, through everything from breast enhancement to provocative clothing, but often not for any benefit to their own husband. In many cases they are outright mocking their husbands. Can women really not see why this can be such an issue?

So, at that point, MacLeod has suggested that for the sake of everyone, men might be better off just to be castrated, to eliminate all corresponding pressures and expectations, and essentially roll-over with respect to this tug-of-war with their wives.

What I am going to suggest, however, is just the opposite, and will undoubtedly likewise ruffle plenty of feathers. But given all associated realities of the natural human reproductive cycle, and the differences between men and women, etc., what I am going to suggest, that fits very cleanly into this whole theme, both from a religious perspective, a societal perspective, and a natural reality perspective, is the Law of Sarah.

When you actually take a few steps back, and seriously consider the whole equation, it is hard to deny that the Law of Sarah appears to be perhaps the best, and most natural answer -- most consistent with natural realities -- if a woman can be prescient and unselfish enough to see it. What a particularly wise and prescient woman might realize as she starts to wane in the effectiveness of her role as an anchor in her marriage and in her family, is that employing and practicing the Law of Sarah may actually be the best option -- or perhaps better stated, the "least worst" option, for hanging on to her man, and holding both the marriage and the family together. Otherwise, there is serious risk that without an effective anchor, it is all going to crumble and fall apart.

But for those who insist on denying basic natural laws, bucking mother nature, and attempting to force water to run naturally uphill, there's always that option too -- do everything possible to circumvent nature, and see how long it lasts.

In closing, I'm going to share one of my favorite Wendell Berry quotes:

Whether we and our religious and political leaders know it or not, Nature is party to all our deals and decisions, and she has more votes, a longer memory, and a sterner sense of justice than we do.”

Regardless of all the well-intended human nurturing and manipulation to the contrary, in the end, given enough time (because sometimes nature can move very slowly), eventually nature will ultimately and and inevitably take its course.
I guess that's why the Lord commanded Lehi to have only one wife, so he could let nature have it's course. We can see what happens when nature takes it's course - we see that the entire idea of marriage and restraining oneself is taking a back seat to self indulgence.

A wife who doesn't want sex is like a child that doesn't want you to hug, touch, or tickle them. They are traumatized or fearful, and don't know how to enjoy it. They shouldn't be shamed or made to feel guilty about it, just as you shouldn't shame a child for not showing you affection. This is her sacred body and she doesn't feel comfortable with you touching her for perhaps many reasons. It's a husband's opportunity not to feel entitled or disappointed, but to show patience and charity, and help her learn to receive. He can start with a back rub or foot rub or give her something she appreciates, until she can learn to trust that he loves her and his love is not dependent on him receiving something. He shows his love by not showing disappointment in her lack of desire, but by seeking to understand. Of course I do realize that there are manipulative wives out there, and it's probably possible that a sexually satisfied wife may still use sex as a threat, but my guess is that's not the norm.

A wife not liking her husband masterbating shouldn't be assumed to be a case of her trying to control him. I think in most cases of porn or masterbation, the wife is still having sex with her husband to some degree. Masterbation that results from intentional stimulation is a problem of entitlement to sex. And he is going to bring that attitude of entitlement into the bedroom and also the attitude that his wife is a lost cause. No one should try to control someone else, But someone not giving you something is not controlling you or forcing you to do anything. They are simply withholding from giving, and this is fine if their motivation is right. Why should a wife receive a so-called "gift" of sex from her husband if she cannot appreciate it and it makes her feel used? Sex must be given and received at the same time, otherwise a husband should feel content to have his wife touch him and he keep his hands off of her, because he's only stimulating her and she's not getting any release from your touching. How would that make a man feel if he never ejaculated during sex. But for some reason he thinks his wife should endure this?

A wife can become entitled to, and she shouldn't, but it's often in response to husband entitlement.
If for example the husband could or would not provide any sustanance, the wife should not demand he work for her and act disappointed in him or upset, but simply stop having children with him and/or get a job. What happens is that entitlement in one leads to entitlement in the other. So if a wife gets upset about how a husband is living his life, it's probably because she has felt him getting annoyed or upset with her or vice versa.

If nature must take it's course, then it should go both ways. The wife who doesn't want to get physical with one man may get physical and be okay with another. I know of a marriage that was young and sexless for 7 years, because the wife was unwilling. They finally divorced, she ended up remarrying and having a child, so she at least was able to do it with another man and gain some perspective, which hopefully will help her. If a woman doesn't like sex, then the husband needs to figure out why and not give up helping her. Husbands should not feel entitled to more wives or children or sex from their wife. So I say, if wives can be so unselfish as to give a husband more sex with another wife, husbands can be equally generous by giving his wife another husband who can also give good gifts to her, whatever that man has to offer.

https://youtu.be/LQCU36pkH7c

Mamabear
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3351

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

Post by Mamabear »

Sarah wrote: September 13th, 2022, 4:41 pm
tmac wrote: September 13th, 2022, 12:31 pm This discussion is getting interesting enough here towards the end that I'm actually going to chime back in.

In fact, part of it, including MacLeod's premises regarding the natural realities of human sexual and reproductive life cycles, and his tongue-in-cheek (I hope) theory about castration, etc., is interesting enough that on Sunday I had a fairly lengthy conversation with a good friend of mine, who is a very experienced Family and Marriage Counselor/Therapist. I wanted to hear his take on some of these issues. And it is interesting to say the least, especially based on what he is seeing out there in the trenches, day in and day out.

Among other things, we talked about one of his unnamed clients, a middle-aged man, who asked "what am I getting out of my marriage relationship at this point? . . . I provide everything for my wife, a house, a car, clothes, food, everything; I pay all the bills, and I try to provide some reasonable degree of companionship and emotional support -- to the extent she's even interested. . . On her side of the equation, she doesn't work or pay for anything. We're empty-nesters now, so there are no kids to look after, and there isn't even much to do around the house. We sleep in separate rooms because she hates my cpap machine. I do all my own laundry. I prepare most of my own food. I clean up after myself. But what am I getting in return? What is the quid pro quo? At this point, what am I getting out of this relationship"?

My friend said his answer was "You're getting an anchor. Your wife is still providing an anchor for your life."

And, I think that is essentially what MacLeod has been describing in terms of the "Nurture" side of the equation in the whole tug-of-war between the forces of nature and nurture in a marriage relationship. But as I have thought about it, and considered what my friend said, and my own experiences, and a lifetime of observation, what I am going to say -- and in effect offer solidarity with MacLeod -- is that a woman/wife is going to really struggle to be an effective, long-term anchor, if she reaches a point where she is not willing to offer her husband/man any physical intimacy. At that point, I essentially agree with MacLeod that her role and effectiveness as an anchor, both for the man, and to their family, becomes very tenuous. I agree that is simply a natural reality, whether people want to acknowledge it or not.

Part of the problem with the modern female mindset is that wives often think that everything their husband has is theirs, as well as his body, and the expectation of control over that. What that means is that if, for example, there is a deficit in their physical intimacy, and the husband seeks to remedy that through masturbation, for example, the wife is offended, and wants to exercise control over his body too -- often while withholding and not being willing to share her own. In other words, she wants to view everything between them to be shared and subject to her control, except her own body, which she feels like she should have absolute control of, and if she has no interest in physical intimacy, that's just tough, and should have no effect whatsoever on her entitlement to everything else. Worse yet, there are actually a growing number of women out there, including plenty within the Church, who deliberately sexualize their bodies, through everything from breast enhancement to provocative clothing, but often not for any benefit to their own husband. In many cases they are outright mocking their husbands. Can women really not see why this can be such an issue?

So, at that point, MacLeod has suggested that for the sake of everyone, men might be better off just to be castrated, to eliminate all corresponding pressures and expectations, and essentially roll-over with respect to this tug-of-war with their wives.

What I am going to suggest, however, is just the opposite, and will undoubtedly likewise ruffle plenty of feathers. But given all associated realities of the natural human reproductive cycle, and the differences between men and women, etc., what I am going to suggest, that fits very cleanly into this whole theme, both from a religious perspective, a societal perspective, and a natural reality perspective, is the Law of Sarah.

When you actually take a few steps back, and seriously consider the whole equation, it is hard to deny that the Law of Sarah appears to be perhaps the best, and most natural answer -- most consistent with natural realities -- if a woman can be prescient and unselfish enough to see it. What a particularly wise and prescient woman might realize as she starts to wane in the effectiveness of her role as an anchor in her marriage and in her family, is that employing and practicing the Law of Sarah may actually be the best option -- or perhaps better stated, the "least worst" option, for hanging on to her man, and holding both the marriage and the family together. Otherwise, there is serious risk that without an effective anchor, it is all going to crumble and fall apart.

But for those who insist on denying basic natural laws, bucking mother nature, and attempting to force water to run naturally uphill, there's always that option too -- do everything possible to circumvent nature, and see how long it lasts.

In closing, I'm going to share one of my favorite Wendell Berry quotes:

Whether we and our religious and political leaders know it or not, Nature is party to all our deals and decisions, and she has more votes, a longer memory, and a sterner sense of justice than we do.”

Regardless of all the well-intended human nurturing and manipulation to the contrary, in the end, given enough time (because sometimes nature can move very slowly), eventually nature will ultimately and and inevitably take its course.
I guess that's why the Lord commanded Lehi to have only one wife, so he could let nature have it's course. We can see what happens when nature takes it's course - we see that the entire idea of marriage and restraining oneself is taking a back seat to self indulgence.

A wife who doesn't want sex is like a child that doesn't want you to hug, touch, or tickle them. They are traumatized or fearful, and don't know how to enjoy it. They shouldn't be shamed or made to feel guilty about it, just as you shouldn't shame a child for not showing you affection. This is her sacred body and she doesn't feel comfortable with you touching her for perhaps many reasons. It's a husband's opportunity not to feel entitled or disappointed, but to show patience and charity, and help her learn to receive. He can start with a back rub or foot rub or give her something she appreciates, until she can learn to trust that he loves her and his love is not dependent on him receiving something. He shows his love by not showing disappointment in her lack of desire, but by seeking to understand. Of course I do realize that there are manipulative wives out there, and it's probably possible that a sexually satisfied wife may still use sex as a threat, but my guess is that's not the norm.

A wife not liking her husband masterbating shouldn't be assumed to be a case of her trying to control him. I think in most cases of porn or masterbation, the wife is still having sex with her husband to some degree. Masterbation that results from intentional stimulation is a problem of entitlement to sex. And he is going to bring that attitude of entitlement into the bedroom and also the attitude that his wife is a lost cause. No one should try to control someone else, But someone not giving you something is not controlling you or forcing you to do anything. They are simply withholding from giving, and this is fine if their motivation is right. Why should a wife receive a so-called "gift" of sex from her husband if she cannot appreciate it and it makes her feel used? Sex must be given and received at the same time, otherwise a husband should feel content to have his wife touch him and he keep his hands off of her, because he's only stimulating her and she's not getting any release from your touching. How would that make a man feel if he never ejaculated during sex. But for some reason he thinks his wife should endure this?

A wife can become entitled to, and she shouldn't, but it's often in response to husband entitlement.
If for example the husband could or would not provide any sustanance, the wife should not demand he work for her and act disappointed in him or upset, but simply stop having children with him and/or get a job. What happens is that entitlement in one leads to entitlement in the other. So if a wife gets upset about how a husband is living his life, it's probably because she has felt him getting annoyed or upset with her or vice versa.

If nature must take it's course, then it should go both ways. The wife who doesn't want to get physical with one man may get physical and be okay with another. I know of a marriage that was young and sexless for 7 years, because the wife was unwilling. They finally divorced, she ended up remarrying and having a child, so she at least was able to do it with another man and gain some perspective, which hopefully will help her. If a woman doesn't like sex, then the husband needs to figure out why and not give up helping her. Husbands should not feel entitled to more wives or children or sex from their wife. So I say, if wives can be so unselfish as to give a husband more sex with another wife, husbands can be equally generous by giving his wife another husband who can also give good gifts to her, whatever that man has to offer.
Other things can also effect women's sex drives- hormonal imbalances, peri menopause, menopause and the use of anti depressants. All can wreak havoc on sexual desire. Communication, compromise and understanding is needed to resolve sexual issues in marriages.
As far as a wife who doesn’t have a job and is not willing to clean, cook or do laundry that’s uncalled for.

Post Reply