It’s Getting Steamy Up In Here! (Or What do Yoni Steaming and Seances Have in Common?)

There are some episodes of SSW, that I simply have no comments for.  Words fail me.

Between yoni steaming and getting text messages from dead people (you can’t make this stuff up – fact is stranger than fiction!),  I am forced to bow in humility before TLC and confess that I am not worthy to be reality TV material.

yoni steam

Common Law Marriage in Georgia (or: Are the Snowdens Married? – Season II)

There are still questions about the validity of the Snowdens’ marriage.  I suppose this will probably come up every single season they are on the show.  So, I guess I’ll just plan on writing a blog post every single season about it (or not).

Lets talk about common law marriage in the Peach State since that is where they were living.  Of course they moved to California, so I’ll mention that as well, but first a little background.  GAA common law marriage is simply a marriage which is not officially documented by the state.  It is also often the case that common law marriages are not accompanied by any sort of ceremony (that is to say, a documented ceremony – by a church for example).  This of course does not mean that the people involved are not married.  It merely means that the state has not entered their union into the state’s archives.  Also of note is the fact that common law marriage is not the same thing as, “living together”, or even as, “living together for a long time (7 years or whatever)”.

If its not the same, then what is the difference? What is the main difference  between, “living together” and being married (whether documented or common law)?  Please don’t say, “a piece of paper”; you’ll make me both sad and nauseous at the same time.

I hope everyone would agree (at least everyone who is married, and therefore knows the difference) that the main difference is the commitment to the relationship.  hand heartThe main difference, and the thing that makes marriage different from “shacking up” (and better too), is the commitment to the other person and to the relationship.  This difference, this thing, this commitment, is something that the state cannot create nor control, and yet it is the key ingredient, the main ingredient, and is in fact the very core of the matter.  You could even say it was the heart of the matter.

How is this commitment demonstrated in the eyes of the law?  The requirements are essentially the same for both documented and common law marriages.  They are something like this:

  1. The parties must be eligible (age requirements, not too closely related, mentally sound, etc.).
  2. Both parties must be freely willing to enter this agreement i.e. they agree to be married.
  3. The parties present themselves to their acquaintances as married.
  4. They live to live together as man and wife.
  5. Must consummate the agreement.

There are several states which have laws explicitly recognizing common law marriage.  The details of the qualifications vary from state to state, but here they are: Colorado, District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah (Utah has some interesting things to say about common law marriage and polygamy by the way – there’s another post there someday).

However, there is a snag in all of this given that, officially, common law marriage was “abolished” in the state of Georgia in 1997 – but it isn’t remotely so simple.  In the year 2010, the Supreme Court of Georgia actually decided to recognize a common law marriage anyway.  The link to the court’s decision is here if you are interested in the entire thing, but I’ll give you the Reader’s Digest version.

The parties involved were Debbie Jean Ault and James A. Norman.  In 1986, Mr. Norman was newly divorced from his previous wife.  Three years later (1989), Ms. Ault began living in the same home as Mr. Norman (in Alabama), sharing a bedroom, and doing housework. They would both tell people that the other was their spouse, Mr. Norman had sexual relations only with Ms. Ault, and Ms. Ault would often call herself Mrs. Norman.  And, while they never actually had a marriage ceremony of any kind, Mr Norman would repeatedly tell Ms. Ault that, “in God’s eyes, you are my wife.”

A few years later (1998) they moved to the neighboring state, Georgia – together, of course.  By this time Georgia had abolished common law marriages; they were a thing of the past!  There they managed to live happily (or not) until 2008 when he filed a law suit against her demanding she pay him damages (for who knows what).  She responded that she would need money to do that, and that she didn’t want to be withgavel him any more.  So, she simply countered by filing for divorce, alimony, and an equitable division of assets. Ouch.

He said she couldn’t do that because, 1) they were never married to begin with and, 2) Georgia doesn’t recognize common law marriages.  The Supreme court of Georgia did not agree with Mr. Norman on either count.  Ms. Ault was awarded $54,000 as lump sum alimony.

Why did this happen?  Judges are usually very clever, and they will try to make decisions as narrowly as possible, so as to affect as little of the existing framework of laws as possible.  For them, the fact that Georgia had abolished common law marriage was inconsequential.  They did not even need to address this issue.  Rather, they looked to the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 1) which says that all the states must respect “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”

Since the Normans lived together as man and wife in Alabama, and Alabama allowed common law marriages at the time (even tho their marriage was never recognized by Alabama), then it follows that the state of Georgia should honor the marital status which the Normans attained while living there. Tada!

Another obvious exception would be the case of couples who contracted a common law marriage in the state of Georgia prior to 1997.  These relationships would all be recognized as valid marriages if there were ever a similar challenge brought before the court.

Despite abolishing common law marriage, Georgia officially accepts them from other states, and accepts them in their own state prior to 1997.  So, what does this mean for a Georgia couple in 2019, that want to have a common law marriage?  It means that their marriage will also be accepted in Georgia, and it means the same thing in California, and in every other state in the union.justice

How could it be otherwise?  How could they have have equal treatment under the law otherwise? Equal treatment is protected by the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the equal protection clause). There is no way the state could defensibly accept a common law marriage (along with granting all the privileges that accompany that condition) entered into on the 31st of December 1996, and deny one entered into on the 1st of January 1997.  You cannot give different treatment to people who are similarly situated.  The Georgia law would amount to discrimination based upon age.

The current law essentially says, if you were born in the 80s or later, you cannot contract a common law marriage, even tho your parents did, and your older siblings (who were born in the 70s) did.  It is ludicrous to think that the state can abridge a fundamental right at all, and marriage is absolutely a fundamental right – which means it resides with the people and not the government.  There is no logical way around it. If it were challenged, the law abolishing common law marriage it would obviously fail.  The only reason it is still on the books is because it hasn’t been challenged.

Common law marriage is at the very heart of the idea of marriage.  Marriage is a contract; an agreement entered into by a man and a woman for the purpose of creating a family and propagating the species.  The very core of the matter is: who decides that two people can marry?  The people themselves, or the state?  You can’t get rid of common law marriage by any legislation without also getting rid of marriage itself (and this would only happen in a totalitarian, Orwellian nightmare of a world).  It is the foundation upon which all real marriages are built.

The piece of paper – the government documentation – is only a wrapper placed around the core.  All documented marriages are also fundamentally common law marriages at their center ( I say “all” in the sense that the vast majority of them are – there are always a few exceptions, but this is beyond this post.  maybe next season, haha.).  The center is a man and woman casting their lot together, promising to stay that way, and beginning a family.

For the sake of illustration, let me make a comparison to another fundamental right: life.  For most people in the U.S., when they were born they (actually, their parents) were issued a birth certificate by the state in which they were born.  What if the State of Georgia made a law saying they were no longer going to recognize births in the state?  I know this sounds ridiculous, but stay with me.  The new law said that there would no longer be state issued birth certificates.  Would this mean that a baby born in Georgia, after the passing of this law, was not really born, or not really alive because they didn’t have official recognition from the state (or from the church for that matter)?  Of course not!  That would be crazy, right?  The child would be born regardless of what the state said (or didn’t say) about it.  Furthermore, that child would have all the rights that any other natural born citizen would have.

It is true that not having a birth certificate can make life more difficult when it comes to legal matters (and I personally know of some people who have experienced this), but that is a separate issue entirely.

If Georgia stopped issuing birth certificates, it wouldn’t stop people from being born. The state has no say about that.  May it ever be so!  Similarly, the state has no say about marriages.  They may decide not to issue papers, but it would have no effect whatsoever on whether the person was born, or whether a man and woman were married.

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!

Are the Snowdens Married? (Or the Alldredges, or the Brineys?) – What is Marriage?

In the first episode of Seeking Sister Wife we are introduced to the Snowden family, Dimitri and Ashley.  A little after 7 minutes in Dimitri tells us that after dating for 2 years they, “Committed [themselves] to each other.” Additionally, on TLC’s, Meet The Families of Seeking Sister Wife, page we learn they have purposefully abstained from a legal marriage under the eyes of the law in order to ensure equality with their future wife.  They consider one another spouses, they have 3 children together, they share finances and many other things, and they also let us know that they have no marriage license from the state of Georgia (or any other state).

We Committed

In light of the several comments and questions my posts have generated (see here and here) about the nature of marriage – especially in the Snowden family, but also in the Alldredge and Briney families as well (and all other plural families too), I have decided to write a post on my views about what constitutes a marriage.

A few years ago (November 2015) some friends of mine decided to rededicate their marriage.  They threw a big party and asked if I would “officiate” at their ceremony.  It was a relatively informal event; I said a few words, and they renewed their vows with each other.  It was a beautiful thing, but the reason they were doing it was a bit disappointing.  You see, they had just left the LDS Church (the reason why is unimportant to this post), and the validity of their Church marriage (specifically their sealing – more about this later) was being called into question by some of their acquaintances.  This is sadly not an uncommon occurrence.  When the Church kicked us out we had the same experience.  Concerns were expressed to us that we had broken our covenants and now we were adulterers, had lost all our blessings, no longer had the Holy Ghost with us, etc.

This post, and my future post about the Mormon concept of Sealing, are adaptations of the words I prepared for that marriage rededication ceremony.  Here it goes:

In 1774, Thomas Jefferson said these words, “A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” This was two years before the Declaration of Independence.  At the time these were radical words – treasonous words even.

The common model of government at the time was that no rights existed for the common people – except those granted to them by the King.  The King owned all the land, the people were subject to his mandates, and any privileges the people had were granted to them by their Sovereign Lord.  He in turn received all his power from God by virtue of the Divine Right of Kings.  Alas, there are many unfortunate parallels between government and religious authorities.

As powerful as they think they may be, governments are run by men – mortals all.  Governments do not possess any powers unless those powers have been delegated to it by the people who are governed.

The preamble to the Declaration of Independence correctly proclaims this fact.  It reads in part:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Eleven years later these ideas were crystallized in the Constitution of the United States of America.  It was the fulfillment of the promise made in the Declaration of Independence.  And yet, despite the Constitution being the founding document of our nation’s government, our Constitution is widely misunderstood; and here is the misunderstanding:

constitutional-convention

The Constitution does not grant you the right to free speech.  It does not give you the right to print what you please, or to choose your own religion.  The Constitution does not grant you the right to carry arms for your defense, to assemble or associate with whom you please, or any of the other things we have imagined it to grant to us.

If you will take the Bill of Rights, and actually read it, you will discover that in every case, the rights mentioned are not granted.  It does not say anything to the effect that, “the citizens of the United States are hereby granted the right to worship as they choose…”  No, No!  On the contrary, it says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”  It does not say anything like, “you may carry arms for your defense.”  Rather it says, “the right shall not be infringed”, and on and on.

Indeed, the government cannot grant us anything we do not already have – we, in fact, are the ones that have granted powers to the government – the government does not have anything the people have not given to it.  Rather than being granted, all the rights mentioned are protected.  They are not extensions of our privileges, they are limits and restraints upon the government!

Well, what does all this talk about government and rights have to do with marriage?

The truth is: if the government has any authority at all, to marry anyone, then they have received that power from the people, and their receiving of that power from the people in no way diminishes the rights of the people (unless we let it).  The powers are delegated, yet still retained by the people – because they are inalienable.  They cannot be separated from us.  They are inherent both to our being and to our existence.

The sanctity of marriage is reduced by getting the government to protect it.  Orthodox Christian theologian Davd J. Dunn writes,

“Today’s Christian conservatives seem to be worshiping America, or at least a certain idea of it, when they ask the government to protect the ‘sanctity’ of marriage. In doing this, they have vested the state with the power to sanctify…Christians who demand the state take up the task of defending marital sanctity are effectively making the state their god. They seem to think that their local capitol can perform miracles when [in reality] only the Holy Spirit has the power to sanctify.”

Well, there are some, no doubt, who do not feel the same way about things.  They are upset with anyone who does something out of the ordinary.  And in particular with anyone who exercises their rights while ignoring the religious or civil authorities.  There are many who feel that marriages are illegitimate without the approval of the government, or the Church, or both.

But it has not always been that way.

Marriage in the scriptures, and for most of human history, has simply consisted of a man and woman (usually with the consent of the woman’s father), living together and attempting procreation.  No priest, no license, and no registration.  These are all recent innovations within the last 500 years.  The Catholic Church did not require marriages to be officiated by a priest until 1563.  The Anglican Church did not get around to making this requirement until 1753.  For most of human history, marriage has simply been an agreement (contract), recognized or arranged by the immediate families, for a man and woman to live together.

He calls her wife, she calls him husband.  They share a home, they share a bed.  They have and raise children together, and they have cast their lots together for good or ill.  They are married.  Are the Snowdens married?  Absolutely yes!

Does that mean that any two people can just live together and call it marriage?  The answer is no; that’s just called shacking up.  The other elements are required also, namely the commitment to live as husband and wife – with all the duties and privileges that are connected thereto.  Shacking up, without commitment – without the man taking the woman as wife, is sin.

You could classify marriages into three sorts: social marriage, religious marriage, and civil (or government) marriage.  Social marriage is rooted in the ideas of Common Law and Natural Rights, which I have discussed somewhat above.  It has probably been the most common type of marriage thruout the history of mankind, and perhaps the oldest as well (tho this is debatable I am sure).  Either way, it is certain that of the three, civil marriage is by far the late comer to the party.

What about all this business with government issued marriage licenses then?  When did that become a thing, and why?  First, let us take a look at the legal definition of the word “License”.  From Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition, published in 1910) we have:

“A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal.”

In other words, a license is permission to do something which would otherwise be illegal.  The problem is that the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that marriage is a fundamental right for all.  And even without the Court’s decisions, marriage (both monogamous and polygamous) has existed for thousands of years as a fundamental aspect of human life and society which stems from our rights to associate and to contract.  Marriage predates all our modern laws, governments, and licensing requirements. How then can getting married be illegal?  Of course the answer to this question has everything to do with polygamy.  Licensing of marriage by governments had its origins in efforts to stamp out plural marriage among the early Mormon people (and also to prevent interracial marriage – which is beyond the scope of this post).

In closing, here are some questions you may want to ask yourself (or your friends and family – if you like those stimulating sort of conversations).

If my right to marry is fundamental, why do I need permission from the government before I can get married?

If I get a marriage license, what does that marriage license give me permission to do that I could not do before I got the marriage license?

Who is giving me that permission?

Where did they get the power to give me that permission?

And perhaps the most important question,

If I get married without a marriage license, is my marriage still lawful?

When there is no structure available to you, then make your own.  There is no approval needed from any man, or government, or religious institution to get married.  And despite the disapproval that may be shown by some, it is our God-given, and natural right to do so.

___________________________________________

For another post about the Snowden family and common law marriage see here.

Where Are the Men?

First the Snowdens:

Extremely unfair.  Those are the words I used to describe what I saw in the interaction between the Snowdens and their prospective wife, Joselyn, in this most recent episode (Seeking Sister Wife, season 1, episode 5).  I thought the way they treated her was in very poor form.  The Snowdens talk a lot about doing things together – which is good, but if they are truly keen on family unity, then they ought to be including, as far as possible, the potential new family member.  Otherwise, the new relationship is built with an imbalance from the beginning.

Ashley complains that Joselyn did not talk to her about being intimate with Dimitri, but I never saw Ashley initiate any conversations about it either!

Screenshot 2018-02-22 18.18.54.png

And whose responsibility is it?  If you invite someone to come play a game with you, and they accept the invitation, but only you know the rules, who should initiate a conversation about the rules of the game?  Perhaps there is responsibility on both sides, but Ashley certainly has nothing to accuse Joselyn about in that area.  Joselyn did not know the rules of the game.  She was not privy to the conversations the Snowdens had without her.  As far as she knew, she was playing by the rules – since Dimitri was the representative of the Snowden Family.  The whole mess is tragic.

When they were at the restaurant, Dimitri completely threw Joselyn under the bus.  What was she supposed to say?  Again, she was not privy to the conversations had by the Snowdens about it.  She did not know what Dimitri and Ashley had already talked about (or even if they had talked about it).  Furthermore, Dimitri had apparently not talked to Joselyn about what happened on their date.  The poor girl was thrown into the situation completely blind.  How is she to know what to talk about?  Again, she doesn’t even know if Dimitri has already talked to Ashley about their intimacy.  Should that announcement come from Joselyn?  Of course, she does not want to ruin what they have started by saying the wrong thing.  She does not want to throw Dimitri under the bus.  Unfortunately, the concern was not mutual.  All during their very uncomfortable date, Joselyn keeps looking to Dimitri for cues.

Screenshot 2018-02-22 18.51.06

She was looking for him to step up, to be a man, to lead the conversation, to help her know what to say, and what to talk about.  And indeed, he should have stepped up, and opened a conversation about what happened.  Instead, he just threw her away.

Screenshot 2018-02-22 18.54.12.png

While there are obvious differences, I am reminded of the incident between Amnon and Tamar recorded in 2 Samuel 13 (NIV).  Amnon burned with desire for Tamar.  He allowed his desire to grow until he exercised it upon her by deception and force.  When the deed was done,

Amnon said to her, “Get up and get out!”

“No!” she said to him. “Sending me away would be a greater wrong than what you have already done to me.”

But he refused to listen to her.

Now for the Brineys:

I love all the Brineys, my wives love them, and my children love their children.  My family and I have interacted with them in person on several occasions, and it has always been a pleasant and rewarding experience.  But honestly, I cringe when I see the Brineys’ interactions with one another on TV.  No doubt, there have been glimmers of family unity and domestic felicity, but mostly it’s just been painful to watch.

I hesitate to comment about them at all; first, because they are my friends, and second because I know how difficult plural marriage can be.  My own family has certainly had its share of internal discord.  Nevertheless, I have been shocked and dismayed to witness how willing they’ve been to publicly criticize and belittle one another.  I hope things are getting better for them, I hope their experience will ultimately be positive for their family.  Every episode I watch just makes me so grateful that it is not my family’s life that is exposed to the public’s scrutiny!  They are either very brave or very foolhardy – perhaps both.

Having said all that, I do not think it is a good policy to expect one wife to mediate the arguments between other bickering wives.  That is the husband’s job.  This is not a good family policy any more than sending a child to settle a dispute between other quarreling children.  It will not, in general, improve the situation – very likely it will make it worse.

Screenshot 2018-02-22 19.01.57.png

Settling disputes between children is a parent’s job.  Sometimes children can settle their disputes on their own, and that’s always nice for a parent to see, and that is certainly ideal, but when the children can’t come to a resolution on their own, and the argument is dragging on and even escalating, the parent needs to intercede (see Mosiah 4:14-15).

It does seem like Drew is becoming more involved, at least in talking one-on-one with the wives about their problems, and that has been good to see.  For the long-term good of their family relationships, I hope Drew can find a way to get even more involved and mediate the disputes a little more directly.

Screenshot 2018-02-22 19.03.26

See here for my continuation of this post.

Dimitri & Joselyn

Note from the blog owner: Joshua is my husband and he is a new contributor to the blog.  This is his first post.  

I’d like to express a few thoughts about the recent interactions between the Snowdens and their new prospective wife, Joselyn.  There has been a lot said about it already (and much of it deleted already as well).  I agree that it was certainly a mistake for Dimitri to have been intimate with Joselyn so quickly, especially given the agreement that he and Ashley already had in place about it – Dimitri himself says as much.  It was impressive how open he was with Ashley about it all.  Even tho it was uncomfortable for sure (and so much about plural marriage can be), he came forward about it on his own, and I think it shows how strong their marriage is already.  Ashley handled the announcement with grace to spare (altho, I also choked on her tea just watching it!), and tremendous kudos goes to her for that.  Ultimately, the resolution of this problem is between them and Joselyn,

So, a mistake was made.  This no one doubts.  But what exactly the infraction was, and how serious, are other questions.  Actually, I think two offenses were potentially made by Dimitri.  The first was toward Ashley, and the other was potentially toward Joselyn.  Time will tell on the second.

There is a tremendous amount of imprecision in our language, and this can lead to controversy when it comes to sorting out the details of things.  To make things worse, in many cases the imprecision has grown over the generations as meanings of words have shifted, while still retaining their historical significance.  This is especially true in regard to words having to do with sexual intimacy.  Some of the accusations hurled at Dimitri are “cheating”, “open marriage”, “not a true polygamist”, etc.  But those insults are not words that we find in either the Bible or our civil codes.  Rather than using these terms, it would be more helpful to actually name the sin, or the crime, that was committed.

Of course, the big two are usually adultery and fornication.  So, was it adultery?  My answer is, certainly not.  Adultery can only happen when a married woman has sex with a man who is not her husband.  That is the original, and best, definition of adultery (after all, it is the scriptural usage of the word), and as Joselyn was not married, then neither of them would be guilty of adultery.  So, it must be fornication then?  My answer is, not at all.  Fornication (as used in the scriptures) is referring to prostitution (and potentially other things – but that is a different post), and since Dimitri probably didn’t even pay for the date (the tab was likely picked up by TLC), I think they are both safely clear on this charge as well.  I realize the meanings of these words have been changed by our modern society and that the strict scriptural usage of these words has largely been lost to us – but I’ve always been a – reject the philosophies of men mingled with the scriptures – kind of guy.  I’ll do a separate, more detailed post at a later date about the scriptural usage of these terms.

If you outright reject what I have said thus far as too repulsive to even consider, well, to each their own.  I claim the privilege of living according to my own conscience, and allow you the same.  If you are still considering things, then you may be asking, “Well it sure seems like something is wrong here, what is it then?”  His first offense is simply that he violated the agreed order of things which he and Ashley had put in place.  As Ashley has already put so well, he only has to answer to himself and to her about that.

Ashley knows how hard Dimitri works to support and care for his family.  She knows how loving he is to his children, and to her, and I think anyone watching the show can see these qualities in him as well.  He is a loving husband and a devoted father.  She does not forget all the good in him for the sake of one mistake.  In fact, she feels like, “there’s really nothing to forgive” and that’s good enough for me.

Now, what about the possible offense towards Joselyn?  The scriptures do say something about what happened.  Not that the Snowdens are necessarily concerned with what the scriptures may say – as I realize that they are not especially religious people (please correct me if I am wrong here), but this will perhaps be of benefit to some of the fans who may be concerned with the scriptures.  Here it is:

Exodus 22: 16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

You will notice that this verse is about an unmarried woman (and who is not engaged to be married), otherwise the intimacy would be adultery.  The sin associated with this act would essentially come if there were a lack of follow thru – he should endow her to be his wife.  Premarital sex is a crime if there is no intention to marry, or if it leads the woman along when there is no intention of marrying her.  This is the main deterrent against premarital sex in the Bible.  If a man has sex with a woman, then he was supposed to add her to his family and support her as a wife.  If a man can’t handle adding a wife to his family (whatever the reasons may be), then he shouldn’t be sleeping with single women.

I hope Joselyn stays, and I hope they can work it out.  I think they are a potentially amazing fit.  I know Joselyn has received advice online that she should, “Drop that Zero, and marry a Hero.”  The truth is, Dimitri is not a Zero (ask any woman in her late 20s or 30s what the dating pool is like).  I don’t think Joselyn could do better than the Snowdens (this is a compliment to the Snowdens, and not an insult to Joselyn).

So, there you go.  You thought I was saying that intimacy between unmarried people wasn’t that big of a deal, but it just may be that I think it’s more serious than many of my readers do.

Picture1

See here for a better date between Dimitri and Vanessa Cobbs.  It’s a very refreshing change.

You should know me by now

Throughout the Seeking Sister Wife episodes so far, Ashley Snowden frequently talks about how she and Dimitri are looking for a sisterwife “together.”

I remember when I thought plural marriage was going to be a team effort.  I thought the 3 of us would spend all this time together.  I definitely thought we would all live together.  I saw the theoretical benefits of having another mom around to help with kids.  I imagined that my husband having another wife might mean I would get more time alone with my husband (because my sisterwife could watch the kids, instead of me always taking care of the children and my husband and me never getting time alone as a couple).  At one point I even fantasized that I would share Melissa’s (teenaged) children with her the same way she would share my little kids with me, that we’d all just be one big happy blended polygamous family.

Boy, was I wrong about all of that.  I remember realizing that, no, I was going to be left out of plenty of things.  It wasn’t going to work out for us to live together.  I wasn’t going to get the benefits of another woman around to share the workload.  I wasn’t going to be included in every event and every date and every decision.  I wasn’t going to get more alone time with my husband while my sisterwife babysat my kids.  And her teenagers certainly weren’t going to consider me their second mom (wow, was I naïve about stepchildren).

I’m not saying that to highlight the negative.  I just see similarities between what happened in my family with Melissa, and what’s happening in Ashley’s family with Joselyn in episode 3.

Ashley is very much in control as the steps are taken to begin dating Joselyn — the setting up of the online profile, the checking of their dating website messages, the responses to Joselyn, etc….

Then, when Joselyn is coming to visit the Snowdens in person, Ashley insists that the first “date” be with both herself and Dimitri.

Screenshot 2018-02-09 22.59.03
“I think it makes sense to do the first date together.”

I’m not criticizing Ashley.  I love how gung-ho she is about living in polygamy, and she’s one of my favorite people to watch on the show because she’s confident and well-spoken, and I think she and Dimitri are cute together.  I just see so much of myself in her!  I too was pushing and involved and confident and gung-ho, and I had this vision of how things were going to go, that we were going to do everything together.

And then my reality set in.

I don’t know.  How Ashley’s family turns out will probably be different than how mine turned out.  Perhaps her life will actually end up looking the way she currently envisions.  I only know mine hasn’t, not at all, and there are a couple of moments in this episode that I watch and think, Oh, I know how she must be feeling!  

One of the moments is when Dimitri suggests that he and Joselyn go on a date that evening, just the two of them, and Ashley stay home with the babies.

Screenshot 2018-02-09 23.22.40
Dimitri suggests he and Joselyn go out sans Ashley, and he waits to see how she will answer.

Of course this was going to happen at some point.  But it seemed to catch Ashley off guard.  Maybe she thought when it happened that it would be her idea?  After hesitating, she responded with a not-so-confident, “[Of] course.”

Obviously my husband was going to spend time one-on-one with my future sisterwife as well.  He had a relationship to develop with this new woman.  But it was still a time of intense emotion for me, when the theoretical became real, very real, and I wasn’t always thrilled with how things were playing out.

Dimitri knows Ashley well, and in a scene outside the restaurant, he asks her several questions directly: “You’re not just, like, passively okay? You want me to go?  You’re, like, cheerleading me to go on a date?  Pom-poms, Team Snowden?”

And to each one, Ashley says, “You should know me by now.”

Screenshot 2018-02-09 23.23.41
“You should know me by now.”

Dimitri concludes, “She makes the I’m-not-feeling-it face.”

I remember Joshua asking me if I was sure I was okay with what was happening.  And I was absolutely convinced that I was doing what God told me to do, so I wasn’t about to change my mind, and I always answered, “Yes, yes, yes, I’m sure,” even when I was crying and didn’t know how to handle the strong feelings I was having.  (My poor husband.)

Ashley does go on to say, “You go on your date.  Have a great time.”  This is her being brave.  This is her trying to be supportive, staying the course, and holding in the emotions.  The emotions are hers to sort out, not Dimitri’s.