In case it wasn’t clear in 52, my wife said “I would totally rather have another wife than another husband” to me after reading this post, which is kind of an interesting response. Just to give a little background, she has mentioned to me that she would like another wife, for her not so much for me. That is, a person who would handle all the household duties and watch the kids (she’s worked full time for most of our marriage and we have 4 kids). Once she said (I’m not sure that I should repeat it) “hey, if I got all that, I wouldn’t even mind if you slept with her once in a while.” (I imagine she was kidding). So if anybody is interested in being my wife’s “concubine” (that’s basically what’s she’s describing, right?) you can contact her directly.

On the issue of another husband, she said after the post “I do not want to be accountable to two men.” Also an interesting response.

And don’t worry honey, I’m not planning on foisting an extra husband on you (thanks, honey, you are also the perfect spouse) especially now that David G. is spoken for (bad joke )

??

I am with many modern women, I see the pragmatic value of multiple women (as workers mind you) and the whole concept of “sister wives” being supportive to women of another area but I see zero value in having a second husband (since the one I have is perfect of course). The group hug theory is interesting but I feel like I can get hugs without an ordinance.

It does bring up a really nice perspective, however, that younger women was as a result of seeking single women as opposed to other less favorable descriptions, so thank you for that.

My two cents is that plan A (1839-1843) was never fully put into practice and that DC 132 represents the shift but still has echos of the old system (41, which says, “oh, and if you were doing this before, it’s okay”). I agree that 51 looks similar to me; Emma is not now to partake because the system has been changed. I also wonder if JS wasn’t too crazy about the idea either. The men wanted a different plan.

So David G. et al., when you conduct you straw polls, ask “which do you prefer, polygyny or complex marriage”

On the point that complex marriage isn’t compatible with patriarchy, I’m reminded of James Madison’s dictum “if people were angels they wouldn’t need government.” How much “archy” do we need in the celestial kingdom? I’m not saying that there will be no order, but celestial people, by definition, know how to get along.

Interesting post, thanks for fleshing out your thoughts at JI, Steve.

Zach–philandering is extremely common, and celestial marriage is extremely rare. Emma’s second wife cheated on her the old fashioned way then made her raise the child as a grandchild. A few anti-marriage agitators advocated open amarital sexual pairings, but by and large people just sort of slept around the way they always have and the way they always will (I’m not condoning this and believe strongly that adultery is dangerous, cruel, and awful)–to believe that everyone is a born-again Baptist circa 1990 is both naive and historically inaccurate.

So now you’re left trying to explain the development of a rare ideological system on the basis of an exceedingly common practice. I’m not saying that this is impossible, but the skeptic’s initial response would be that the satyr’s view of polygamy is probably inadequate. I suspct a logical consensus would ultimately allow for both sexual pleasure AND conceptual complexity beyond just the libido.