Sexting Bernie & Equality

I know this post is an episode behind, but I’ve got to get down some of my thoughts about it before I move on.

I think the whole thing was blown entirely out of proportion. All the previews built up this impression that Bernie was acting in a wildly inappropriate way, but when it actually aired it was seen that it was all just a load of hot air. From what I saw, Bernie is essentially innocent. He didn’t initiate the sexting at all, and Paige herself says Bernie is the one that put an end to it when the woman started to get explicit. I don’t see what is the problem here. It seems like Paige should be proud of her man for that, rather than chastising him for what the other woman sent to him without any solicitation on his part (by this I mean without solicitation for the sexually explicit messages). It is amazing really, and a bit strange.

I also feel like I need to give some props to Bernie here. From what was shown, I would say he handled things very well. He stopped the potentially inappropriate text conversation, and he handled his wife, and her complaints, in a very gracious manner. He ended up apologizing for nothing (he says at first that he didn’t think he had crossed a line – and he is right) in order to protect his relationship – and hey, sometimes you might have to do that. But I’m not sure that apologizing for non-offenses every time they arise is going to be a sustainable long-term solution to the problem.

It seems to all come down to Paige’s well-developed (and dare I say, overdeveloped) sense of jealousy. This is definitely a large hurdle for the McGees and a challenge she has to personally deal with. Jealousy over a husband’s time, affection, and resources is an expected (tho not required!) emotion that has to be dealt with by most plural families, but Paige’s worries go even farther. She thinks she will also be jealous about her children’s time and affection for the new wife (this is in the first episode). I wonder if she will feel even more jealousy when the dogs end up liking the new wife as well?

Paige Doesn't know.png

OK, joking aside, these are serious matters to deal with, and while I was disappointed to see Bernie chided for things he should have been praised for, I do have to give some credit to Paige as well. She admits that she doesn’t know what can and cannot be said between a husband and a potential plural wife (she just knows how it made her feel). I think that’s a fair thing for her to say, and here is my fair response:

The wives should be on equal terms, and with equal privileges. The second wife (and her relationship to their husband – or potential relationship) should not be subject to any restrictions that the first wife and her relationship are not (or were not) also under. Especially if those restrictions are placed on the new wife by the first wife – those are dangerous waters to be treading in. If it was fine for the first wife, it is fine for the second. End of story.

Paige says that when she and Bernie were courting they had, “free discussions” but now that he is married that is not allowed any more. I say bologna. She asks him about holding hands, kisses good night, etc.? One possible response to this question is: Did she and Bernie hold hands, kiss good night, talk about sex, etc.? My guess is that the answer is likely “yes” on all counts – she probably asks this question because she was remembering her own behaviors when she was courting. Not that these things are required for a relationship to progress, but they are normal, healthy, and acceptable behaviors. She says it is about Bernie “respecting” her and their relationship, but I see it much more as disrespect and devaluation, on her part, towards the potential second wife in not allowing her the same privileges she enjoyed – and this would be a very unhealthy way to start a relationship.

I guess another way of saying this is that Paige should not be berating Bernie ex post facto. Their agreement was no sexual intimacy before commitment (a.k.a. marriage), which is an excellent rule to abide by. Bernie did not break this rule, and is therefore innocent. He did not even violate the spirit of this rule. “This is borderline cheating,” she says, but I say it is nothing of the sort; furthermore, the line should not be moved after the fact. Is it cheating or isn’t it? When it comes to laws and rules, it is not right to hold someone hostage with a fuzzy, ill-defined, gray area that may change in shape or scope with the whims of emotion. It reminds me of the very good rule the Snowdens laid down in the first episode of this season. Ashley told Dimitri that he was allowed to think Vanessa is beautiful, and he was allowed to tell her she was beautiful, but he just wasn’t allowed to act on it.

cant act.png

Something else to consider is the situation the potential second wife finds herself in. She wants to gain the attention/attraction/affection of a man who already has a wife, and who is (presumably) already having sex. Hopefully, it’s no secret that one of the things women bring to a relationship is sex-appeal. Certainly this is not all they bring, but it is a significant part of what they bring, and this is every bit as true in monogamy as it is in polygamy. It is nothing to criticize, or belittle, and it is not strange or creepy. It just needs to be understood as the proper and biological reality of the situation. However, this fact may lead her to believe that she is at a disadvantage, since her potential man is already having sex. As a result, she may feel like she needs to assure him that she will also be sexually pleasing. This is a good and natural desire, and concern, for a woman to have – to want to please her future spouse (and good men are concerned about pleasing their spouse(s) as well).

While I can understand this point of view, I will say to any potential sister wife: you sincerely don’t need to worry about this. That is all I will say for now (but more on this later).

I could understand limiting things in a second courtship if it was a mistake in the first courtship (like Dimitri drawing a line for Vanessa on their first Date). Beyond this, if it is not sinful, or prohibited by some agreement between spouses, then there should be no attempt to make the parties feel guilty over it. And yet, the emotions here can be so raw and dangerous, that everyone needs to tread cautiously. My serious advice to potential plural husbands, in this area, is that you should be open about the relationship, but not open about the affection/intimacy. In other words, keep it private. Doing otherwise probably wont be good for anyone.

My serious advice to current wives is: Don’t be going thru his accounts. This (Paige snooping thru Bernie’s messages) actually seems like a much bigger breach of trust to me, than Bernie’s handling of the sexting. Just as I was typing this I recollected that Charlotte, when I was courting Melissa, told me that she knew my email password, but that she wanted me to change it, and that she had decided not to go snooping into correspondence between us. What an amazing woman she is!

Isn’t polygamy really just adultery?

[Author’s note: this post is primarily addressed to LDS and members of organized fundamentalist break off groups. If you’re neither, you are of course welcome to read on – but you may miss some of the cultural references; then again, you may find it interesting to catch a glimpse into how millions of Mormons think.]

I was raised very active, faithful LDS. As such, I was emphatically taught the following: “Polygamy is a Sin, unless God commands it, and God will only ever deliver such a command through the Prophet. Polygamists who don’t get permission from the Prophet (or his authorized representatives) are guilty of Adultery and the only worse sins are Murder and Denying the Holy Ghost.” (paraphrasing)

I have found this perspective to be the rule throughout the LDS church and among almost all organized fundamentalist groups. What is amazing is that LDS and fundamentalist groups alike are united in thinking that only One Man can rightfully sanction plural marriage, and that anyone who marries plurally without that One Man’s permission is an adulterer – the only difference is WHO they believe the One Man is. I sometimes refer to this way of thinking as the “one man theory.”

If an LDS person gains a testimony of certain doctrines that were taught in the early days of the church and begins investigating fundamentalism, yet still retains their conditioned belief in the “one man theory,” their efforts will quickly devolve into a frustrating and futile version of the game “button, button, who’s got the button?” Indeed, such a person can truly relate to Joseph Smith’s feelings when he said, “In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?” (JS-History 1:10)

Rather than dig in to the origins and reasons for this pervasive belief in the “one man theory” (which could fill books and is beyond the scope of this post), let’s try a different approach recommended by John Taylor:

“I believe it is good to investigate and prove all principles that come before me. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good, and reject that which is evil, no matter what guise it may come in. I think if we, as ‘Mormons,’ hold principles that cannot be sustained by the Scriptures and by good sound reason and philosophy, the quicker we part with them the better, no matter who believes in them or who does not. In every principle presented to us, our first inquiry should be, ‘Is it true?’ ‘Does it emanate from God?’ If He is its Author it can be sustained just as much as any other truth in natural philosophy; if false it should be opposed and exposed just as much as any other error. Hence upon all such matters we wish to go back to first principles.” (John Taylor JD 13:15.)

With this approach in mind, let’s revisit some common and familiar terms and re-examine whether their modern, traditional interpretation within Mormonism actually matches their biblical and historical meaning – or not. In “proving” (in other words testing) these things, we will be able to better discern what is true and what isn’t, so that we can confidently embrace true, eternal principles and reject the flawed traditions we’ve inherited in our religious culture.


My friend Joshua (one of the main authors on this blog) has already defined the biblical perspective of the term Adultery fairly thoroughly here. One noteworthy point is that for adultery to have occurred, a married woman must have had illicit intercourse with someone other than her husband; in which case, both parties (the unfaithful wife and the man) have committed a capital offense (meaning punishable by death) under biblical law. There is a corollary to this law that I hadn’t considered until just a few years ago, which I’ll spell out for clarity: therefore if an unmarried female has intercourse with a married man, biblically speaking this act is not adultery. In fact, if a married man sleeps with an unmarried woman, the biblical “penalty” is somewhat surprising: he must marry her!

This biblical perspective – of what does and doesn’t qualify as “adultery” – perfectly accords with D&C 132:61-63: “…if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed….” These verses are also helpful in clarifying the distinction between adultery and polygamy.


Marriage is one of those terms that most people don’t think needs to be defined or qualified, because it is such a familiar and ubiquitous concept. However, living in the modern USA, we have certain traditions that have become taken for granted as being required for a marriage to be legitimate – specifically, “marriage licenses.” Have you ever considered the questions: “are marriage licenses required for a marriage to be legitimate? Are marriage licenses an eternal principle?” A brief look into the history and development of marriage may be surprising if you’ve never studied it before.

In the LDS church (since 1890), the standard for whether or not a marriage is regarded as legitimate is whether a couple possesses a government issued marriage license or not (at least within the USA). Biblically, historically, and even legally, this is a strange and arbitrary definition. Even today in 2019, 10 States in the USA (namely Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah – see here) don’t require a couple to obtain a marriage license to be considered legally and lawfully married; in these states, all that is legally required for a couple is to publicly say they are married to each other and to cohabit with each other. The legal term for such a marriage is a “common law marriage” (see here). Being born-and-raised LDS myself, when I first learned about this fact I found it shocking! But… if you think about it, it makes sense. Marriage and the family pre-date all government; Adam and Eve didn’t get permission from the government aka a marriage license (what a laughable idea!).

“Ok,” you might be thinking, “so if a state-issued marriage license isn’t a God-ordained requirement for a legitimate marriage, surely at least a religious ceremony is required!” Question: what came first, the marriage of Adam and Eve, or the founding of the first church? What about cultures that don’t have organized religion involved with marriage – does that make them all guilty of adultery?

For example: among Native Americans prior to European colonization, government was a very fluid and uncentralized concept. When a man and woman decided to be married, they didn’t ask the chief for permission. Most tribes had religious ceremonies that surrounded the marriage to make it publicly known that the woman and man were starting a family; but if a couple “eloped” (ran off into the woods) and came back announcing that they were now married, it was accepted just as lawfully binding by the tribe as if accompanied by the most elaborate religious ceremony/celebration. Would these marriages be somehow less legitimate in God’s eyes because they lacked a government issued paper document or ecclesiastical endorsement?

Scripturally speaking, I believe it’s self evident that what constitutes a legitimate marriage in God’s sight is along the same lines as a “common law” marriage – that a woman not be married/espoused to another (living) man, that she and her husband consider themselves married to each other and are faithful to one another, and that they have conjugal relations with each other. Nothing more, nothing less.

Marriage vs. Sealing

Perhaps some reading these words are thinking I’m missing the point semantically by equating the rules governing monogamous marriage with those governing plural marriage (thinking that a plural situation makes all the difference). My response to that is: upon what basis do you think that? Either marriage is marriage – or it isn’t. If a monogamous marriage is a legit marriage and acceptable in God’s sight when the qualifications outlined above are met, then why not a plural marriage?

Granted, the scriptures make it clear that “if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.” (D&C 132:15)

In other words – if a marriage is to last beyond THIS world into eternity, it must meet additional requirements. This applies to monogamous marriages the same as polygamous marriages; but just like if a monogamous marriage isn’t “sealed” for eternity doesn’t make the marriage relationship adulterous, if a polygamous marriage isn’t “sealed” for eternity it also doesn’t make that marriage relationship adulterous!

If a monogamous couple:
1) is faithful to each other;
2) builds a celestial quality marriage relationship;
3) desires and is worthy to receive the sealing ordinance by proper authority;
4) yet hasn’t had the opportunity to receive that ordinance by proper authority in this life;
Would the God you worship deprive them of that blessing and damn them to singlehood apart from each other for eternity?
Or would God provide them with an opportunity (either in this life or the next) to comply with the ordinances if they are worthy in every other way?

And now the crux of the matter.

If a polygamous man and his wives:
1) are faithful to each other;
2) build a celestial quality marriage relationship among one another;
3) desire and are worthy to receive the sealing ordinance by proper authority;
4) yet haven’t had the opportunity to receive that ordinance by proper authority in this life;
Would the God you worship deprive them of that blessing and damn them to singlehood apart from each other for eternity?
Or would God provide them with an opportunity (either in this life or the next) to comply with the ordinances if they are worthy in every other way?

Can such a plural marriage relationship (despite not being “sealed by proper authority” or being entered into with a “priesthood ordinance”) be called adultery by any scriptural or rational definition of the term?

I believe the answer is self evidently No.

And to anyone who would say otherwise, I would remind you:
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” (Exodus 20:16)
“And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.” (Deuteronomy 19:18-19)
“And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10)

In other words, the biblical penalty for adultery is death; ergo the biblical penalty for *falsely accusing people of adultery* is also death – for the accusers. Accusing people of adultery is very serious indeed; the stakes are higher than you have probably ever considered before. Even though our modern governments do not enforce the biblical laws concerning the crimes of adultery and false accusation, God sees all, and Christ Himself warned that “with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.” (Matthew 7:2) Not my words. We cannot say we haven’t been warned. Wise people will be very reluctant to judge the relationship choices of sincere consenting adults.

Jacob 2

This chapter from the Book of Mormon is surprisingly only one of two places in all of the standard works (at least in English) where the word “chastity” is used. The word does not appear anywhere in the Old Testament, and only occurs 3 times in the New Testament (in the KJV). From our modern, Western worldview, the word “chastity” is tied almost exclusively to a sexual connotation of virginity/celibacy; however, from a Hebrew worldview the perspective has much more context and nuance. This subject is also far beyond the scope of this not-so-brief blog post, yet is incredibly important and hopefully will receive the 1000 page book it deserves someday soon.

For the sake of today’s conversation, I will just point out a few significant qualifiers from Jacob 2 that are often overlooked by Mormons who misapply Jacob’s prohibition against polygamy to be universal.

In verse 27, we find that the restriction from practicing polygamy was actually limited in its application to the people present at this meeting where Jacob addresses them: “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none.” To apply this scripture beyond the intended scope is textually unsupported.

In verse 30, Jacob includes a caveat to this direction to live monogamously: “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people (to live polygamy); otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” Can you think of a single other commandment God has ever given where He included a caveat or exception with it? The fact that He did so in this case is concrete proof that monogamy is not an eternal truth or natural state – it was a commandment specific to this limited group of Nephites and was requisite for them to obey until it was rescinded (until God commanded otherwise).

Also worth mentioning in regard to verse 30; for those who equate polygamy with adultery unless specifically commanded by God, let’s try a word replacement and see what happens: “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people (to commit adultery); otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” Sometimes God can give commandments that defy the limited wisdom and perspective of man; but can you point to a single instance in all of scripture where God commanded a single person to violate a moral absolute? Adultery is a moral absolute; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would not command anyone to violate a moral absolute; therefore, Jacob 2 actually proves that monogamy is not a moral absolute.

And finally: repeatedly throughout the Book of Mormon, the authors note that the Nephites obeyed the law of Moses; what almost all modern Mormons forget, is the fact that the law of Moses requires polygamy under certain circumstances. Jacob 2’s restriction of this specific group of Nephites to monogamy presents a singular anomaly, an exception to the rule (polygamy), which was the natural state for all other people who lived the law of Moses. Further discussion on this topic is necessary, but will have to wait for another time.

Polygamy Today

“Those who limit the designs of God as concerted by the Grand Council of Heaven cannot obtain the Knowledge of God, and I do not know but I may say they will drink in the Damnation of their souls. All those who are disposed to set up stakes for the Almighty will come short of the Glory of God. To become a joint heir of the Heirship of the Son a man must put away all his traditions.” (Joseph Smith, 27 August 1843 “Three Grand Orders” speech)

Most Mormons today reject the idea that living polygamy is acceptable in 2019; however, the reasons used by various factions to reject it are quite variegated. Old-school or conservative faithful LDS church members believe polygamy is an “eternal principle” in theory, but since “the Prophet says we shouldn’t right now therefore anyone who does live it (without the Prophet’s permission) is committing adultery – follow the Prophet.” On the other end of the spectrum: New wave, liberal LDS church members believe that polygamy was a terrible mistake made by the early church leaders/members, and “thank Goodness God has used the Living Prophets to correct such an Egregious Sin.”

I suppose it may also be worth mentioning that there’s a new movement within the LDS church called “the Remnant” that thinks that polygamy is an evil sin and Joseph and Hyrum never lived/taught it. Unfortunately, those who believe this reveal their ignorance or denial of historical fact, as well as an astonishing ability to selectively choose which scriptures they accept and which ones they reject. Further comment on this tangent could also fill a book, and is beyond the scope of this post.

And lastly, there are fundamentalists, who by definition absolutely believe in and practice plural marriage. Yet they condemn anyone who practices it outside of their authority as sinners. I ask you which is worse: sin, or hypocrisy?

What’s amazing is that if we discover we have been in the wrong, we can repent and be forgiven as long as we 1) make reparations if we’ve wronged others and 2) turn away from our wrong behavior and do better moving forward. I hope this post has provided information and a new perspective that will help us become better neighbors to plural families that we may not agree with regarding religious belief and affiliation, as well as help us become better prepared to account to God for how we judge others.

Unfortunately, my brother isn’t a polygamist.

When we began telling people we were polygamists, we told them in the wrong order.  We should have told my parents last, rather than first; as it turns out, my father has a big mouth, and couldn’t respect my simple request to allow me to tell people my news myself.  I asked him not to tell anyone for a month, and he promised me that month, and yet within 48 hours he had called both my bishop and his own bishop, confided in his friends and employees, and saddest of all, had announced my news to my brother, whom I really wanted to tell personally.

To his credit, he did call me afterwards and insist, “You should tell your brother your news.”  When I asked him why he was going out of his way to suggest that, he would only repeat himself.

So, I called my brother on the phone.  He was on a road trip with his wife, driving across the desert with spotty cell service.  Between me wondering what my dad had already told him and the phone call frequently getting dropped, the conversation took place in less-than-ideal circumstances.

After I finished telling him, my brother’s immediate response was the following: “What’s going on?  What do you need?  Do you need money?  Do you need help getting out?  Tell me what you need from me; tell me how to react, and I will.”

I answered that I didn’t need money, I didn’t want out of the situation, that all I wanted was his acceptance.  After he was convinced that I was safe, that I was being taken care, and that I was content, he stated his intention to be supportive.

And he has been.

This experience was what I thought of when I saw S2E4 (“Unforeseen Circumstances”) of Seeking Sister Wife.  Sophie Winder has a conversation with her brother about her polygamy, and he says he doesn’t understand it and doesn’t agree with it.

Screenshot 2019-02-26 10.06.54.png

Sophie says it sucks that her brother disagrees with polygamy.

However, she also says, “Unfortunately, he hasn’t chosen to live this lifestyle.”

Screenshot 2019-02-23 12.34.24.png

This is where Sophie and I differ.

I honestly don’t care whether my brother is a polygamist or not.  I also don’t care whether my friends are polygamists or not.  Naturally, if someone is a polygamist, that’s something unusual we have in common, which makes a friendship more likely.  But all I need from a brother or a friend is for them to be a supportive person in my life as a whole; I don’t need them to live exactly as I do.

Screenshot 2019-02-26 10.13.30.png

I’m friends with plenty of monogamists, and I don’t think it’s “unfortunate” that they haven’t chosen to live polygamy.  I still consider them to be “there for me.”

I definitely don’t think everyone should live polygamy.  Among other reasons, polygamy is extremely difficult.  In fact, Sophie’s brother cites that as a reason for not being interested in it.

Screenshot 2019-02-26 10.11.16.png

After the episode aired, Sophie published a post on the Winder family blog called “Live and Let Live.”  You can read it here.  You can also read Joshua’s thoughts on the same conversation here.

Screenshot 2019-02-26 10.13.16.png

Mama Donna (and Other Relatives)

Q:  You want to know what problem with polygamy is?

A:  Multiple Mother-in-Laws.

OK, joking aside (and I’m only partially joking), I feel the need to say a few words about the Snowdens’ most recent interaction with Ashley’s mother, Donna.  Don’t get me wrong, I think the Snowdens are doing great this time around!  But I did find something very disconcerting about the most recent episode of Seeking Sister Wife.

Let me also say, I am very happy that Dimitri’s surprise turned out so well.  It was a bold move for Dimitri, and, after all the extreme discomfort, Mama Donna was ultimately very graceful.  It was a gratifying moment, and a lot of the credit for this had to do with Vanessa’s heartfelt and touching words – she is a gem.  I think she won Mama Donna over.  I also have to give some applause to TLC and the producers of Seeking Sister Wife.  They are the masters of suspense and of the awkward situation.  The awkwardness was so thick it was palpable.  I’m sure there was so much editing and splicing in this scene, but it was entertaining nevertheless.

Alright, here is the issue I wanted to address: At 20 minutes and 24 seconds into the episode Dimitri says,

“If Mama Donna is not on board with Vanessa, you know, this could be the end of our relationship with Vanessa.”

the end of vanessa

As I mentioned earlier, I am very glad that things worked out for them, and I hope that this is not really what Dimitri meant to say; because, it is completely wrong to involve your parents, or your in-laws, in your marriage to the point of giving them veto power.  Yes, parents need to be respected and indeed honored, but they are also supposed to be left behind.

Genesis 2:24 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

They are supposed to be left behind in many ways.  They are no longer supposed to be relied upon for financial or emotional support.  And, while they may be consulted for advice, they are no longer to have any authority to make decisions for your life.  Adults, and especially married people, must live their own lives, be responsible for their own decisions, and responsible for their own support, independent of their parents and other relatives.  There is no closer relationship, and no bond tighter, than the one you have with your spouse(s).

This can be a very difficult thing for some people to do – difficult for both the parents and the children!  I remember making announcements to our own extended family members when we had become polygamous.  I had to remind so many of them that they could not make decisions for us, and to stop trying, and to stop fretting about it.  After all, it would not affect them any more than they allowed it to.

I liked so much what Sophie Winder had to say on this subject a little earlier in the episode when she was talking to her brother,

Sophie Tells it

“I feel like I’m living this lifestyle with Tami and Colton because I was called to it.  My marriage with Tami and Colton is what we build up, not what your opinion of it is.”

She goes on to say,

“The fact that my brother doesn’t necessarily agree with this lifestyle, you know, kind of sucks, but I firmly believe in my lifestyle, and I don’t feel like there’s any need to apologize, and so I’m going to choose what feels right for my life.”

Preach it Sophie!

Dimitri & Vanessa

My, my, my how things have changed with the Snowdens!  And much for the better, I think.  I love that they are giving it another chance despite what happened between Dimitri and Joselyn last season (and then what happened afterwards, when Joselyn was thrown under the bus).  There is forgiveness and a chance for redemption here, and I like that.  It is amazing actually, and really gratifying to see – so big kudos to them.  They are making me proud this season!

Dimitri seems to have his head in the right place this time (and all his other body parts are in the right place too); and no wonder, with the seemingly constant reminders from both Ashley and the producer.  I both laugh and cringe every time Dimitri is reminded of his poor behavior last season, but he seems to be handling the humiliation gracefully, and with the proper attitude.

I think he has realized that you can’t respect people and treat them as objects at the same time.  He respects Vanessa too much to sleep with her before there is a real commitment (a.k.a. marriage).

Dont cross this line

Remember that, ladies!  If you meet a man who wants to sleep with you, without being willing to marry you first, then just move on.  He doesn’t care about you.  He’s just using you.  He isn’t worth your time, and you are worth much more than that! 

I think Dimitri has realized that there is too much at stake, too much on the line, and that Vanessa is worth waiting for!  I thought it was funny at the restaurant, when Dimitri wouldn’t even touch her, and was drawing an imaginary line between them.  Some may have seen that as a little extreme (even Vanessa poked a little fun at it), but that is the way repentance works.  I know the Snowden’s are not Christian, but the concepts of repentance and forgiveness are universal.  Dimitri’s behavior with Vanessa reminds me of Jesus’ sayings about cutting off your hand if it offends you.  What would have been acceptable before, may need to be denied for the sake of avoiding temptation.

As for that Vanessa, wow, she is indeed a prize!  From everything we have seen of her, she is a priceless gem!  I do not think the Snowdens could possibly find a more perfect woman for their family.  She is thoughtful, bold, honest, caring, cautious, mature, loving, good with children, willing, devoted, and absolutely beautiful to boot. Vanessa is such a catch that it is incredible she hasn’t been scooped up and married by someone else long ago.

She has said repeatedly that she doesn’t want to mess things up, and she has been doing everything right.  She’s an amazing woman and she’s got everything you would want in a wife or a sisterwife.  I think they have hit the jackpot with her, and I am so impressed.  They had better not mess it up.  She’s a keeper!

8 ounces away

8 ounces of red meat, and red it was, sat between them.

I commend Vanessa for taking the bull by the horns and eating what she wanted to eat, in spite of Ashley’s concern about food, and after stating that she did not want to mess things up on a date with Dimitri.

I think that everyone has the right to ask for what they need in a relationship. We all live in different ways, prioritize different things, and some things are not going to harmonize well with others. That may or may not include dietary demands; although, I’ve heard it said that it is harder to change someone’s diet than their religion.

I find it very funny that Ashley, in the prior episode, was like, “Dimitri won’t like this.” Then, in this episode, Dimitri said that Ashley would not like it.  Perhaps something needs to be sorted out.

I do believe that an established kitchen should be respected, particularly when there are children involved. Otherwise, It is confusing and upsetting for all involved.

I don’t think that part is a control issue.

The problem would be for me if there were an attempt to control what I ate outside of the established kitchen. I like the idea of ordering what you want when you are eating out with the family or with friends, or getting what you want at a drive through on the way home from work when you are by yourself, but eating according to the established “rules” at home (especially in your sisterwife’s kitchen).

I have a good example that happened today; Charlotte’s youngest and I have had terrible head colds (One of the reasons this post is so late).  Charlotte has requested that the child get no dairy until her congestion clears up.  I was craving toast with cream cheese and jam.  I went over to Charlotte’s kitchen with my toast and got immediate demand that I share the food. I wanted to respect Charlotte’s request, so I took the toast back to my kitchen where I ate it. Later I reminded the child that I was not to give her any kind of milk or cheese until her nose stopped running.  That went over much better than eating it in front of her and attempting to explain the same thing. We are hoping for tomorrow to resume her cheese eating.

I see the restaurant differently than a meal at home because I don’t feel the same expectation to share what I am eating.  Other’s mileage may vary with food sharing at restaurants, and that would have to be taken into individual account.

When I married Joshua, I knew that he didn’t like bacon (I know, who doesn’t like bacon?!).  It wasn’t a deal breaker because he wasn’t demanding that I not eat bacon.  As time progressed we talked about the Old Testament dietary laws and I made the decision to refrain from pork.  It wasn’t actually a difficult decision as I knew that I had had a problem with feeling stiff and sore and generally achy the day after every time I ate it.  That graduated to shellfish and other foods against Old Testament dietary laws.

It is, and has been, my decision, and would not be a big deal if I changed my eating habits again.  Now that the rest of the family is off pork and shellfish etc, of course, I would respect the household and not eat it at home.  However, I love eating out, so if I ever did change my diet, I would see eating out as an opportunity, rather than focusing on the kitchen rules as a restriction. I would see it in a way similar to not wanting to make something at home because I know it is made better at a restaurant.



Double Facepalm

“No! Stop. No! No! I can’t believe it!” Joshua put both hands to his face, not believing what he was seeing.

Colton Winder, standing between his wives, was approaching the local farmers market. Joshua, sitting between his wives, was watching it on TV. I couldn’t remember the last time I’d seem him laugh so much and for so long.

“Must be touching at all times!” he roared with laughter, slapping his leg at the hilarity of Colton, Tami, and Sophie awkwardly clasping each other’s hands, white-knucklingly squeezing out the blood, and slowly making their way down the sidewalk. The Winders were about to come out of hiding, but for real this time. I didn’t see a single duck, but I did see lots of intimidating humans.

“I just can’t believe this!” Joshua laughed again, shaking his head.

But what started with Joshua’s hysterical laughter ended with both of his wives in tears. Did that just happen? Did the Winders, in the most awkward way imaginable, just tell the cheese vendor they are a plural family?

Part of this scene was shown again and again in the episode previews. We keep seeing Sophie confess to a perfect stranger, “I’m actually my husband’s second wife,” while Colton and Tami stand there nodding like bobble head dolls, and the vendor stares at them, looking quite surprised at what was just revealed to him.

But then… There’s a plot twist that makes this my favorite SSW scene thus far, when the cheese vendor confesses that he, too, is a polygamist with two wives!!!

The shock of that moment dropped my jaw. I did not see that one coming. That was unexpected. That was… Wait. Did that just happen? All I can say is, that was a wonderful tender mercy.

The episode shows all-too-brief excerpts from the conversation, which I would pay money to see in entirety, between the polygamous Winders and the polygamist cheese vendor. I was so touched by it that I starting tearing up. I looked over at my sisterwife Melissa and her face was red with emotion as well. God is so good!

After the episode finished, my sisterwife, our husband, and I discussed it until midnight. Joshua used the word “charming” to describe the Winders and what happened at the farmers market. Melissa called it “endearing.” Words failed me.

The Winders imagined a market full of enemies throwing tomatoes at them, then handcuffing them and putting them in jail. Instead, they ended up making a new friend. It was truly amazing. I loved it.

What did you think? Did you laugh at the awkwardness of going into public and telling perfect strangers they’re polygamists? Were you disappointed there weren’t any ducks at the farmers market? Were you touched by their luck at meeting another polygamist? What’s been your favorite SSW moment so far? Leave your comments below.