Sealing Part III (The Parable of the Two Sons)

And when Jesus was come into the temple, the high priests and the elders of the church came unto him as he was teaching, and said, “By what authority do you do these things?”, and, “who gave you this authority?”

Jesus answered them, “Tell me what you think? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, ‘Son, go find yourself a wife, and make an eternal family.’

The first son said, ‘I’m not interested.’  Nevertheless, he eventually did find a wife, but they were not married in the temple.  And yet he loved and cherished her like a treasure, and worked hard to lead their growing family, and to provide for all her needs.  She likewise loved and honored him as her husband, and was a devoted and supporting wife.

Then the man came to the second son, and told him likewise to, ‘find yourself a wife, and make an eternal family.’

And he answered and said, ‘I will sir.’  He found a woman, and married her in the temple – a fact that he was always very proud of.  By and by he began to neglect and abuse her, and she him.  They insulted rather than complimented one another, they were always on the lookout to find fault and to take offense, they never apologized or reconciled, and they were secretly glad when something bad happened to the other.  They were miserable, but still took pride in the fact that they were married by the proper authority.”

When Jesus was finished he asked, “Which of the two did the will of his father?”

It was actually harder for them to answer than you might realize, but eventually one elder, who was a little wiser than the rest, replied, “The first.”

Then Jesus said unto them, “Truly I say unto you, that the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you.”

What is Sealing? (Part II)

What is Sealing? (Part I)

In my post about the social/legal side of marriage I said that I would write a future post about the spiritual aspects of marriage.  In particular, I am going to give some thoughts on the Mormon concept of “sealing”.  I realize this might not be interesting to all readers, but it is an essential concept for understanding the full import of Mormon polygamy.

The words that follow are adaptations of the words I prepared for a marriage rededication ceremony for some friends of mine.  Just to give a little of the back story, I will repeat the beginning of my previous post:

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.

My friends were not polygamists (never have been and never want to be), but many of the things I said will have obvious application to marriage in general.  Here we go.

engagement-photo-props-forever-photo-prop-scrabble-tiles-wedding-decor-love-scrabble-photo-prop-save-the-date-mr-and-mrs-wedding

To express it briefly, sealing is all about a continuation of the family relationships that are formed in mortality.  The hope is that those relationships which have been sealed will have the power to extend beyond this life, and into eternity, or in other words, that the covenants involved in family life will continue indefinitely.

The belief is that there is something essential about human familial interaction that can be preserved and endure forever – if it is worth preserving (that is, if it is Heavenly).  While it is true that we may not know the exact details of Heavenly life, we believe that earthly life can be made to mirror Heaven in some respects, that earth can be made a little piece of Heaven, that the Kingdom of God can be within us, and among us, and that we can be personally (and as a family and even as a community) fashioned and made fit for Heaven as clay in a potter’s hand.

If you had to guess which one heaven was more like, a Church or a Family, which would you say?  I would say that Heaven is more like a Family than a Church.  In fact I would say that it was like one family in particular: The family of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  In fact Jesus calls Heaven, “Abraham’s bosom“.  Those who enter are said to, “sit down” with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  And all the faithful who are Christ’s will be part of that family.  Whether natural branches or adopted in, they will be the seed of Abraham.

Capture

The structure of this family looks like this; there are 3 patriarchs at the head (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob), below them are the 12 tribes (the sons of Jacob), next are the 70 descendants of Israel that entered into Egypt (which is symbolic of the world), finally there is the mixed multitude of their descendants and others who have joined them in their journey to the Promised Land.  This structure is very similar to the hierarchical structure of the Church with its Presidency (3), Apostles (12), 70s, and members.

But here is the question: is Abraham’s family supposed to be reminding us that the Church is the real thing to be a part of, or is the Church supposed to be reminding us that Abraham’s Family is the real thing to be a part of?  Well, I’ll give you a hint; Jesus never refers to Heaven as Russell’s bosom.

For Elder Parley P. Pratt, a knowledge of this doctrine of an eternal, heavenly family deepened his love for his own family:

     “It was at this time that I received from him the first idea of eternal family organization, and the eternal union of the sexes, in those inexpressibly endearing relationships which none but the highly intellectual, the refined and pure in heart, know how to prize, and which are at the foundation of everything worthy to be called happiness.
.     Till then I had learned to esteem kindred affections and sympathies as appertaining solely to this transitory state, as something from which my heart must be entirely weaned, in order to be fitted for its heavenly state.
.     It was Joseph Smith who taught me how to prize the endearing relationships of father and mother, husband and wife; of brother and sister, son and daughter.
.     It was from him that I learned that the wife of my bosom might be secured to me for time and all eternity; and that the refined sympathies and affections which endeared us to each other emanated from the fountain of divine eternal love. It was from him that I learned that we might cultivate these affections, and grow and increase in the same to all eternity; while the result of our endless union would be an offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven, or the sands of the sea shore.…
.     I had loved before, but I knew not why. But now I loved—with a pureness—an intensity of elevated, exalted feeling, which would lift my soul from the transitory things of this grovelling sphere and expand it as the ocean.… In short, I could now love with the spirit and with the understanding also.”
– Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, pp. 297–298

Picture1
Lester Ralph’s illustration from Eve’s Diary, pg 42

For those who love and cherish their families, and spouses, it would not fully be Heaven without them.  Mark Twain expressed it very well in, Eve’s DiaryThe final words of that story are Adam’s description of his beloved Eve:

“Wheresoever she was, THERE was Eden.”

Mormons get too wrapped up in authority. They argue with everyone about it.  They even argue among themselves about it.  For many of them it seems that authority, for all the reverence they give it,  is their religion, and this sometimes leads them to say foolish things.  Things like, “Plural marriage without the proper authority is sin.” or, “Unauthorized polygamy is adultery.” or, “Polygamy will damn those who practice it, unless their unions have been authorized by the One Man who holds all the authority (keys)”.

I’ll say a little more about authority in the next installment of this post, but for now I’d just like to point out that in section 132 the Lord mentions three separate cases where a man and woman can make a covenant with each other (these cases are in verses 15, 18, 19).  In every case mentioned, the covenant is between the man and the woman, or between the man, the woman, and God.  There are no mentions made of government officials, state approval, judges, magistrates, or licenses, nor priests, bishops, elders or other clergy.  Furthermore, in every case, no matter how it is done, the Lord calls it “Marriage”, and marriage is always honorable.

And yet, a marriage union has both civil and religious recognition and ramifications.  This is because marriage is fundamental both to our society here as well as in Heaven.  In D&C 130:2 we read,

“And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.”

Indeed, there is something potentially eternal about our relationships.  Hopefully, we will treat them that way.

What is Sealing? Part II

The Faithful Meaning of Adultery

In a previous post, I promised to elaborate some more on Adultery.  It is among the dirtiest of words in the English language.  It conjures up thoughts of the most serious kind of betrayal.  There is perhaps no more serious a crime than the treachery of betrayed trust.  Indeed, Dante places it at the very bottom of the pit – the 9th and very lowest circle of Hell.  In Genesis 20:9 adultery is referred to as, “[the] great sin“.  It is important then that we know what constitutes this great sin.

Inferno 3
Sandro Botticelli’s The Abyss of Hell (a chart based on Dante’s 14th-century epic poem Inferno)

This is especially true perhaps in the case of polygamists, who are accused of committing Mormon Doctrinethis heinous sin by virtue of their marriages.  For example, the last paragraph  under the entry “Plural Marriage” in the book Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, said, “Any who pretend or assume to engage in plural marriage in this day [when the President of the LDS Church has forbidden it], are guilty of gross wickedness.  They are living in adultery, have already sold their souls to Satan, and (whether their acts are based in ignorance or lust or both) they will be damned in eternity.”  These are strong accusations to make.

First of all, let us establish that God has very clearly commanded,

Exodus 20:14  “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

It is the 7th commandment, and violation of this prohibition brought the most serious of consequences.  As for punishment, there is no difference between the sexes, it was to be punished by DEATH for both parties (Leviticus 20:10).  Certainly then we would want to know what constitutes this grave sin, so that we may utterly eschew it.

What is adultery?  The answer to this question may seem simple, and indeed it is.  And yet, the answer may nevertheless still surprise many people.  Of course, as God is the author of this law, we ought to consult the scriptures for an answer.  But first, let us look at the present usage of the word.

Unfortunately, the modern notions of what constitutes adultery have strayed in a very significant way from the original meaning of the word.  Of this grammatical apostasy, some will say that the Biblical definitions of words, such as ‘adultery‘, are not as relevant in these modern times, with our modern understanding, and our modern morality.  To this I would reply, that the Bible is the very reason that ‘adultery‘ is even in our vocabulary.  It is the Biblical teachings on the matter that are the source of our conceptual understanding of this topic.  The Bible is foundational to our notions about the immorality of adultery in the first place.  Furthermore, no matter what the modern understanding of a word may be, we must understand the original, Biblical meanings of words in order to understand the Biblical stories, teachings, and commandments.  As in all things, context is crucial.  Let us be faithful to the word.

Here is the modern definition of adultery from some well-respected dictionaries:

Adultery:

Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than that person’s current spouse or partner.  – Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary

Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse. – Oxford Dictionary

Sex between a married man or woman and someone he or she is not married to.            – Cambridge Dictionary

Certainly language evolves, and this is not necessarily a bad thing.  It is expected as our world changes.  There are constantly new things and new situations that need to be described.  Perhaps these definitions wouldn’t bother me so much if they stated that they were strictly modern definitions and that the original meaning of the word was something else.  Without this sort of disclaimer, people will interpret ancient occurrences of the word in the incorrect light of a modern definition.  Case in point: dictionary.com used to include the biblical definition of adultery on its “adultery” page, but that section was deleted just recently (sometime between March and May of 2017).

Here are some older definitions of the word:

Violation of the marriage bed; a crime, or a civil injury, which introduces, or may introduce, into a family, a spurious offspring.  By the laws of Connecticut, the sexual intercourse of any man, with a married woman, is the crime of adultery in both.        – Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed.) starts with the modern definition, but then adds:

In some [US] states, however, as was also true under the Roman and Jewish law, this crime is committed only when the woman is married to a third person.

I like the wording of these definitions very much. In the Webster’s 1828, it says that Adultery may introduce spurious offspring into a family; thus, adultery requires the woman to be married (i.e. she is part of a family).  To adulterate a thing is to corrupt it by adding something foreign to it – to add or mix something with it that would not normally be mixed with it.  To do so is to commit adultery.   The adulterer is adding his seed to another man’s wife, and potentially his offspring to another man’s family.

Whether or not adultery has been committed depends exclusively on the marital status of the woman.  The marital status of the man has nothing to do with it.  He may be married or single, divorced or widowed; it is all inconsequential.  Let me be very clear and precise: adultery happens when a married (or betrothed) woman voluntarily has sex with a man who is not her husband (or her betrothed).  That is the simple, scriptural meaning of the crime of adultery.  This does not mean that only women can commit adultery!  Both parties are equally guilty, and the punishment is the same for both.

Let’s compare these common definitions with the definitions from a selection of Bible Dictionaries.  As you read these you’ll get the impression that one of these things is not like the other…

Adultery:

Conjugal infidelity. An adulterer was a man who had illicit intercourse with a married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman was an adulteress.  – Easton’s Bible Dictionary (1897)

Adultery was understood as sexual intercourse between a man and another man’s wife or betrothed woman. Similarly, any act of coition between a married woman and a man who was not her husband was also regarded as adultery.  – Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology (1996)

The parties to this crime, according to Jewish law, were a married woman and a man who was not her husband.  – Smith’s Bible Dictionary (1884)

The unlawful association of men and women. Although generally having reference to illicit activity of married persons, the scripture often does not distinguish between the married and the unmarried.  – LDS Bible Dictionary (1979)

A few things stand out to me as I read these definitions.  First, I am very pleased with the descriptions given in the first three dictionaries.  And yet, with this correct understanding of scripture, it makes me wonder in disbelief, how there can be such a generally vehement opposition to polygamy from the Christian community at large.

The other thing that stands out to me is the LDS definition.  It just makes me shake my head.  What are they talking about, “the scripture often does not distinguish between the married and the unmarried”??  Every single instance of adultery in the scripture where the marital status of either party is mentioned makes reference to the marriage or betrothal of the woman.  Every single one.  Here are several examples:

Leviticus 20:10And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wifeeven he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”

Proverbs 2:16-19 “Wisdom will save you also from the adulterous woman, from the wayward woman with her seductive words, who has left the partner of her youth [i.e. her husband] and ignored the covenant she made before God.”

Proverbs 5:3,20 “For the lips of the adulterous woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil…Why, my son, be intoxicated with another man’s wife? Why embrace the bosom of a wayward woman?”

Proverbs 6:26-32 “For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life.  Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?  Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goeth in to his neighbour’s wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.  Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry…But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.”

Jeremiah 29:23 “Because they have committed villany in Israel, and have committed adultery with their neighbours’ wives, and have spoken lying words in my name, which I have not commanded them; even I know, and am a witness, saith the Lord.”

Ezekiel 16:32 “But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!”

Hosea 3:1 “The LORD said to me, ‘Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another man and is an adulteress. Love her as the LORD loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes.'”

Hosea 4:13-14 “They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills… your daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses [feminine noun] shall commit adultery.  I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses [feminine noun] when they commit adultery: for themselves are separated with whores, and they sacrifice with harlots: therefore the people that doth not understand shall fall.”

Romans 7:2-3 “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth… So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”

In light of this fact (that every instance where marital status is explicitly mentioned in connection with adultery the woman is married to another man), we can use this as a key to understand two other cases of scriptural references.  The first case is when adultery is not explicitly mentioned, and second case is where marital status is not explicitly mentioned.  Here is an example of the first case:

Genesis 20:2-6,9 “…Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.  But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man’s wife…and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?  Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.  And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.  Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin?”

No where in these verses is adultery explicitly mentioned, and yet we know this is the sin that both God and Abimelech are speaking of (and the sin which Abimelech was spared from committing) – because of Sarah’s marital status.  Abimelech took Sarah with the intention to make her his wife, thinking that she was unmarried.  In verse 17 we read that Abimelech was already married, and yet both God and Abimelech knew that what he was planning was with “integrity”.

Here is another example of the first case.  What is the difference between these verses in Deuteronomy and this verse in Exodus?

Deuteronomy 22:22 “If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman:”

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 “… If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die… so thou shalt put away evil from among you.”

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.”

The difference between the outcome of these verses is the marital status of the woman.  The situations in Deuteronomy are clearly adultery, for the woman is either married or betrothed, and the penalty is correspondingly harsh.  The situation in Exodus describes a woman who is neither married nor betrothed, and the consequence is correspondingly light.  I don’t know if I would even call this a punishment (altho I did in a previous post for humorous effect).  It is also of note that the marital status of the man, in all these verses, is entirely inconsequential.  He may be single or married; the consequence is the same either way.

As for the second case, here are some examples where there is no explicit mention of marital status.

Exodus 20:14  “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

Deuteronomy 5:18  “Neither shalt thou commit adultery.”

However, we must interpret these verses in light of the rest of scripture.  By using the term adultery there is an implicit mention of the marital status of the woman.  The  very word adultery implies the woman involved is married (or betrothed) and having sex with a man other than her husband (or her betrothed).

One scripture commonly used to make accusations about polygamy being adulterous is:

Matthew 5:27-28  “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

Those making this accusation feebly reason that a man must have lusted after subsequent wives, and is therefore guilty of adultery.  However, they condemn themselves as well since the marital status of the man is not mentioned by Jesus.  They fail to grasp that by their own understanding of Jesus’ words, an unmarried man looking for a wife is just as guilty as a married man looking for an additional wife.

Indeed, I have known several monogamous people (both men and women) who have wondered whether they are guilty of committing adultery since they have “lusted” after their own spouse.  Of course, they are not guilty of anything (in this regard), but there are several problems with their interpretation that led them to this faulty conclusion:

  • First, even if they were “guilty” of “lusting”, it would not be of adultery; it would be of “adultery in their heart”, which (altho it is still a sin) is not the same thing as committing adultery with your body.  Hopefully this is self-evident to every reader and can be left without further discussion.
  • Second, the word lust is not merely sexual in meaning.  Certainly lusts can include sexual desires, but in this context, and in most other contexts in the scriptures, a better term might be covet.  Coveting is all about wanting something that is not yours.  It is about wanting your neighbor’s things.  This saying of Jesus is as much about the 10th commandment as it is about the 7th.  He is reaffirming the command, “thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife” (Exodus 20:17), and, “Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife” (Deuteronomy 17:21).  Coveting your neighbor’s wife is the adultery in the heart that Jesus is referring to.
  • But how do we know that the woman he is talking about is a married woman?  Because he uses the word adultery, and as we have seen, adultery always involves a married woman.  This is the third point of common misunderstanding with these verses.

Many common English Bible translations use the potentially ambiguous term, woman, in Jesus’ saying quoted above, but this word is only ambiguous to our modern understandings.  Ancient readers knew that the women Jesus was saying not to lust after were other men’s wives.

Reformation Day was last week, and this year my family studied the life and contributions of William Tyndale.  The man was a chosen servant in the hand of God, and his contributions to the world are undervalued by a large margin.  He is the man who gave God an English voice, and he did a beautiful job at it.  Here are those verses in Matthew from Tyndale’s 1526 translation of the New Testament:

Tyndale

If you had some difficulty reading that “English” text, have no fear, here it is with modernized spelling and punctuation:

     Ye have heard how it was said to them of old time, thou shalt not commit advoutry [adultery].  But I say unto you, that whosoever eyeth a wife, lusting after her, hath committed advoutry [adultery] with her already in his heart.

Tyndale hit the nail exactly on the head! Whoever eyeth a wife!

Those who make accusations of adultery had better beware of what they do lest they find themselves in violation of the 9th commandment.

Exodus 20:16  “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”

Violating this commandment may be more serious than it seems.  The Law requires the false accuser to receive the punishment appropriate to the accused crime.

Deuteronomy 19:18-19  “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.”

In other words, if a person falsely accuses another person of a capital offense, the punishment for the false accuser is also death.

May we all speak with understanding and not with ignorance, and may we be cautious in making accusations of wrongdoing.

When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise.  – Proverbs 10:19

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.

What do you think?  How would you want to do it if you were a polygamist?