Polygamy and the Command to Multiply (commentary on D&C 132:34-35)

What is the “Law of Sarah?”

I have witnessed many, and sometimes heated, debates about the status of polygamy in God’s eyes.  The variations in position cover the following range of beliefs:

  • It is an abhorrent adulterous abomination to God, and always has been.
  • It is an adulterous abomination, but only presently, and has been allowed or commanded in the past (this is the view currently held by the LDS Church).
  • It is technically allowed (or tolerated) by God, but is not considered ideal (this view is held by some Christians, Martin Luther for example).
  • It is not only allowed, but also considered equally favored by God in comparison with monogamy (this view is held by some in the Hebrew Roots movement).
  • It is always a positive commandment of the Lord (altho it has been withheld from the wicked), it is favored above monogamy, and living it brings the highest possible blessings (this view is held by the various fundamentalist Mormons).

Of course, there are many variations and gradations of these positions, I am sure, and I apologize if I have missed anyone’s  particularly favorite view point.  There is at least one additional position not listed, which I will unfold in this post.  But first, let’s look at some often misunderstood (and criticized) verses of Mormon scripture:

D&C 132:34-35 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law…Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.”

Why is this particular passage so often misunderstood and criticized? On its surface it is really quite simple; anyone reading the account in Genesis about Hagar will see in a moment that Abram takes Hagar to be his wife at Sarai’s urging, while God seems to be silent in the moment.

Genesis 16:1-3 Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.  And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her.  And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.  And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.”

The Bible says it was Sarai’s idea; section 132 says it was to fulfill God’s command.  Section 132 says it was to fulfill “the law”; the Bible makes no mention of any law being followed.  Therefore, section 132 contradicts the Bible, therefore section 132 is false. QED.  If only the world were so simple.

Of course there are many other objections to section 132, and I will get to some of them in future posts, but for now I will stick to this objection.  Actually, this objection  often goes further to say that God never commanded polygamy; not in Abraham’s case and not in any other case either.

The truth about polygamy in the Bible is neither as bleak as the detractors hope for, nor as rosy as the Fundamentalists would like. 

While it is true that polygamy was never commanded in a general sense in the Bible, there are several instances where it is most certainly commanded in a limited sense.  First we have the levirate marriage situation:

Deuteronomy 25:5-6  “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.  And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.”

This command is general in that the marital status of the next brother is not a factor at all.  In other words, this command may result in polygamy if the next of kin is already married; he will still be required to add his deceased brother’s wife to his family, and to provide an heir for his brother’s house by having children with her.  Certainly, this would not result in polygamy in every instance (for example, if the next of kin were single, widowed, or divorced), but it would amount to commanded polygamy otherwise.

Next we have the case of premarital sex between a man and an eligible woman.

Exodus 22:6  “And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.”

Deuteronomy 22:28-29  “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”

As in the previous case, there is no mention made whatsoever of the marital status of the man (only of the woman).  Like the previous example, this command would not always result in a polygamous union, but in cases where the man were already married it certainly could.  Both of these laws are made to protect the woman, and to prevent her from being abused, either by tragic circumstances or by unscrupulous men.

So there we have two cases where polygamy may be commanded in certain situations.  However, neither of these applies to Abraham and Hagar (altho you might argue that the second case applies).  How then can section 132 claim that Abraham took Hagar as wife in order to fulfill the law and command of Yehovah?  One solution is to simply believe that the command was given but was unrecorded.  This is certainly a possibility, but I don’t think it is necessary to believe this in order to harmonize the verses.

A third case where polygamy might be commanded was in the case of infertility, and this certainly was the case for Abraham and Sarah.  Among the first commandments given to man by God was the command to multiply and replenish the earth.  As strange as this may sound at first, this commandment was for the men only.  Some of the ancient rabbis taught that the command to have children wasn’t necessary for women, since they were seemingly hardwired to want that anyway.  Of course the men need the women in order to fulfill this command; nevertheless, it was the men’s responsibility to fulfill, and this has always been the Jewish understanding of the matter.  How can this be so?

Genesis 9:1, 7-9  “And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth…And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein. And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;”

Here God is speaking to Noah and his sons only (and to all the future sons of Noah).  Here is another example in Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel:

Genesis 35:10-11  “And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob:… And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;”

Here’s another interesting one:

Psalm 127:3-5  “Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.  As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them…”

Polygamy can allow a man to have a larger family than he could with a single wife.  Of course, there are some women that are capable of handling a large family on their own.  I am in no way discrediting this; indeed I admire this, but not all women have the same threshold for children (whether biological or psychological), and this will vary widely from woman to woman.  Some would be happy to have a dozen or more while others would rather have none, or want some but are unable.  I personally came from a family of 7 children (I am the eldest), and while I certainly would not want to send myself or any of my siblings back, it ended up being too many for my mother (if you asked her, she would not have wanted to send any of us back either).  She suffered multiple mental breakdowns and institutionalizations during the latter part of her life.  As a result, she had relatively little to do with the raising of my youngest siblings.  My father was happy with 7, and my mother was too (if you asked her), she just might have been happier with 4 or 5.

Despite all that, the obvious objection to this view of the commandment is to point to the case of Adam and Eve:

Genesis 1:27-28  “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

The Jewish understanding of these verses looks at the entire injunction, rather than isolating the multiplying and replenishing part only.  God also says to subdue the earth and to have dominion over it, and over everything on it.  These are largely male activities; which gives us a clue as to who was being addressed.  Of course Eve was to be Adam’s help in fulfilling all these things, but the ultimate responsibility was on Adam’s shoulders.  Here is a verse that illustrates the Hebrew view of the dominion that was enjoined upon man:

Psalm 8:4-6  “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?  For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.  Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:”

Here then is a third situation in which polygamy was commanded in the Bible.  If a man had an infertile wife (and the large majority of infertility problems stem from the female), then he ought to seek another wife in addition to his first in order to keep the law and responsibility placed upon him to multiply and replenish the earth.  The commonly understood length of time is 10 years of infertility (this is the rabbinical tradition), but might be any reasonable length of time.  After this time the couple ought to be looking for another wife if they are serious about keeping the injunction to multiply.  This is not to say that another wife could not be added before this time, or for another reason, but that after this time has elapsed the responsibility becomes more serious.

For many modern Jews, the option of polygamy has been made unavailable to them by the decree of Rabbi Gershom in the year 1000 A.D. (or thereabout).  This rabbinical decree made polygamy unlawful in the Diaspora (and also made it illegal to snoop by opening other people’s mail).  There is some controversy about this ban and when it may have expired etc.; however, the general practice among Jews is to continue this ban out of tradition.  Unfortunately, this means that a modern Jewish man in this situation may have to think about divorce in order to fulfill his duty to procreate, and among Jews this is seen as a justifiable reason to seek a divorce.  Not that divorce is required by the rabbis, only that it is justified.  Still, I think it is a very sad state of things for those in this unfortunate situation.  it would be much better if they would just embrace the law that was already given them, rather than encumbering it with traditions of the elders.

Abraham was promised by Yehovah that his seed would be both numerous, and also a blessing to the whole world.

Genesis 22:17-18  “That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;”

This is the law and commandment which God had given to Abraham, and to all other men as well.  Even if God did not single out Hagar by name as Abraham’s next wife, it would still be perfectly correct to say that Abraham and Sarah were keeping the law and God’s command by adding Hagar to their family.

Let me put it another way.  If the verses in section 132 were talking about marriage in general (and not about polygamy specifically), and had said something like this instead:

“God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave herself to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law…Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.”

No one would probably complain (because monogamy isn’t controversial), even tho the Bible doesn’t explicitly say this anywhere – God did not directly command Abraham to marry Sarah by name.  Hopefully it would be easy to see that Abram married Sarai because it is God’s law to marry and reproduce (it is not good for man to be alone and all that jazz).  Who knows, this may have also been Sarah’s idea.  Regardless, it is the command of God for men to find a willing and eligible woman, get married to her, and attempt to reproduce.  In other words, a similar argument can be made in support of Abraham’s monogamy as in support of his polygamy.  In both cases he was seeking to fulfill God’s law and command.  In so doing Abraham was blessed, and the promises were fulfilled.

D&C 132:30,34  Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins…and as touching Abraham and his seed…both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them…God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.”

This then illustrates an additional view on plural marriage which was not among those listed at the beginning of this post:  It is a form of marriage which is always honored by God if it is lived in a righteous manner (the same can be said of monogamy), and is sometimes commanded, but not necessarily for everyone in every situation.  I do believe there is freedom in these things; most people are not required to live polygamy, but anyone may if they choose.  However, there are times when it positively must be lived, and, like every other law of God, it is a law which ought to be kept when God’s word requires it of us.

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.  And despite the disapproval that may be shown by some, it is our God-given, and natural right to do so.

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 and 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 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

I don’t want to have a chart on the refrigerator

When I went from 11 years of monogamous marriage to a new polygamous lifestyle, I struggled to know what to do with myself on my nights alone.  All my habits revolved around having my husband with me every night.  I didn’t have a life separate from him, so for a time, I felt as if when he wasn’t with me, my life was put on hold.  There was definitely a transition time for me while I figured out what to do with myself when I was alone.

If a monogamous woman was planning on becoming polygamous and asked me for advice, one of the things I would suggest is for her to have things she likes to do without her husband, whatever that looks like for her.

Women who naturally like having their own autonomy might gravitate towards polygamy exactly because of this time alone. I know my sisterwife Melissa calls plural marriage the ultimate lifestyle choice for feminists.  She keeps herself busy with friends and hobbies, and she even chooses to have a job (even though Joshua is a wonderful provider and doesn’t need his wives need to work outside the home). Melissa considers herself a good candidate for a plural wife because her life is so full despite not having a husband who comes to her house every day.

Nowadays, I have a life with my husband, and I have a life without him.  I’m fine either way.  But some of my activities require planning, so I like to know in advance what Joshua’s schedule is going to be.  His schedule does end up changing at the last minute at times, but generally I know what to expect.  If I didn’t know each day where Joshua was going to land, it would cause unnecessary frustration in this whole plural marriage gig, because it would make it difficult for me to have a life separate from my husband.  I need that separate life because otherwise it feels like when he’s not here, all I’m doing is waiting for him.

In episode 4 of Seeking Sister Wife, Dimitri Snowden and Joselyn are on a date at a restaurant.  Dimitri brings up the topic of “splitting time.”

Dimitri: So, splitting time.

Joselyn: Yes.

Dimitri: You know, listen, I’m wondering…

Joselyn: I wanted to ask you.

(They both laugh.)

Dimitri: So I’m one man, um, you know, with one body, you know… How do you feel about that?

Joselyn: As long as we feel that we make the best of our time, that there’s no problem.

Dimitri: Mmm-hmmm.

Joselyn: So how would you go about that?  Like, do you have, like, you think like days, certain days, or just…?

Dimitri: I ideally don’t want to have a defined schedule. I don’t want to have a chart on the refrigerator, where it says like Ashley and then Joselyn and then Ashley… Like, I’m not interested…

Joselyn: Yeah, me either, you know, because…  It feels so generic to me, like I think that’s really generic.

Dimitri: Yeah.

Joselyn: I just want it to go naturally, like you said.

Dimitri: Right.

Screenshot 2018-02-13 01.19.10
“I don’t want to have a chart on the refrigerator, where it says like ‘Ashley’ and then ‘Joselyn’ and then ‘Ashley’…”

I think this is an interesting idea, but frankly, I don’t think it’s very realistic.  I laughed when I saw what the Brineys said about it on Twitter because they seem to agree with me:

Screenshot 2018-02-15 23.23.19

Not every woman likes to plan things in advance as much as I do, so I suppose Dimitri’s strategy might work for some polygamists.  But in most of the plural families I’ve seen, the schedule is pretty predictable.  Either they simply alternate nights (like the Alldredge family on SSW) or each wife takes a fixed set of weekdays (like the Briney family), or some combination/variation.  One plural husband I’ve seen on YouTube spends 2 nights with one wife before switching and spending 2 nights with his other wife.  Brady Williams from the reality TV show My Five Wives simply rotates through his 5 wives, 1 night with each wife, but gives each wife an extra night for her birthday.

Some time ago I read a novel called The Lonely Polygamist.  In the book, the man and his 4 wives have a torturous meeting every Sunday where they decide on that week’s schedule (in particular, the sleeping schedule).  The husband doesn’t take control at the meeting; it tends to be up to the wives to duke it out.  The most aggressive wives end up with an unfair portion of his time, while the newest or most passive wife might go weeks without her husband coming to her house.  This seems dysfunctional to me.

In our family, Joshua’s schedule is totally up to him, which makes sense, since he’s the one going back and forth between the houses.  He’s the one that best understands his own scheduling needs as well as those of his wives and children.  We give him our preferences and we can request changes to his normal schedule, but we wives don’t have to hash it out between ourselves.

And, no, we don’t have a chart on our refrigerator to keep it sorted out.

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.