home
RSS
"Sister Wives" explained: A fundamentalist Mormon polygamy primer
October 25th, 2010
10:33 AM ET

"Sister Wives" explained: A fundamentalist Mormon polygamy primer

By Jessica Ravitz, CNN

Going where no reality show cameras had gone before, TLC this fall aired “Sister Wives,” a television series that invited voyeurs into the lives of a fundamentalist Mormon family that practices polygamy.

The finale aired earlier this month, when Kody Brown of Lehi, Utah, married his fourth wife and, with the addition of three stepchildren, expanded his kid base to 16.

And while the show set out to reveal the human side of such families - not one sexed-up by Hollywood (think HBO’s “Big Love”) or sullied by allegations of under-aged brides (think the trial of Warren Jeffs ) - it kept details about faith out of episodes.

Maybe that was a decision by TLC producers. Or perhaps the family, which is facing possible bigamy charges, wanted to keep those aspects of their life sacred. The finale’s spiritual wedding ceremony - only Brown’s first wife is recognized legally - was off-camera, after all.

So here's a primer on what drives families like this one, religiously, historically and culturally.

"Purest at its source"

Even though polygamy was disavowed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1890,  the LDS Church is still trying to shake its association with the practice, known among Mormons as plural marriage.

Joseph Smith, Jr.,  the church's founder and its first president, was the one who introduced the idea.

He established the church in 1830 after translating the Book of Mormon from golden plates that he said an angel revealed to him in New York State.

Smith - who, like all subsequent church leaders, is considered a prophet - continued to share revelations and new doctrines throughout his life. Among those revelations recorded in 1843 in the Doctrine and Covenants, a book of Mormon scripture, were teachings about plural marriage.

That Smith recorded these teachings is all Anne Wilde needs to know. Wilde, 74, was raised in the mainstream LDS Church but became part of the fundamentalist Mormon movement and the second wife in a plural marriage.

“I kind of look at the gospel as a stream of water, and it’s the purest at its source,” says Wilde, a spokeswoman for Principle Voices, a Utah-based group that educates the public about polygamy. “If those are eternal doctrines, then how can man change them? They can change procedures, but when they start changing eternal doctrines that God has said…that’s where I draw a line.”

Wilde says that about 38,000 people, mostly in the western U.S., are fundamentalist Mormons - though they are affiliated with different communities.

The essential belief among those who practice plural marriages is that they are necessary to achieve the greatest exaltation in what Mormons refer to as the celestial kingdom, the highest of heavenly kingdoms.

In fact, even if LDS Church members don’t practice plural marriage on earth, their scripture still teaches that in heaven it is possible. Mormons also believe that families are sealed together for eternity.

Though historians say that Joseph Smith had numerous wives, and some estimates exceed 30, he didn’t admit it. His first wife (and only legal one) denied it, too.

Brigham Young, who succeeded Smith and in 1847 led Mormon pioneers west to what became Utah, reportedly married 56 women.

The price of going public

It wasn’t until August 1852, at the LDS Church’s general conference in Salt Lake City, that plural marriage was first spoken about publicly.

Such talk, and the open practicing of such marriages that followed, did not go over well on the national stage. Polygamy, observed in an estimated 20 to 25 percent of LDS homes at the time, was just one of the factors that prompted the U.S. government to face off with Mormon settlers in the late 1850s.

In the ensuing decades, Congress would pass a handful of laws to abolish plural marriages. By the time of the Edmunds Act of 1882, polygamy was considered a felony compared to slavery. Practitioners faced fines and prison, and even those who merely believed in the doctrine were forbidden to vote or serve in public office.

Brigham Young had died five years earlier. The LDS Church ’s third president and prophet, John Taylor, a practicing polygamist, assumed his position in 1880. With the passage of the Edmunds Act, he - like many others - was forced into hiding.

In 1886, Taylor “nailed himself to the mast” on the issue of polygamy, says Ken Driggs, an attorney in Atlanta, Georgia, who has written extensively about fundamentalist Mormons and their legal history.

This was when Taylor shared a revelation, which he said he received from both Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith, upholding the practice of plural marriages.

Fundamentalist Mormons believe that Taylor shared this message with church officials who visited him. He revealed the names of those who would form a special quorum of apostles with authority to continue performing plural marriages, no matter what happened with the LDS Church, Driggs writes in a 2005 article for a Mormon journal.

The battle against Mormon polygamy continued while Taylor was underground, with 1887's Edmunds-Tucker Act forcing women to testify against their husbands, requiring anti-polygamy oaths and laying the groundwork for the U.S. government to seize high-value church properties, including temples.

Taylor died the year the law passed. He was succeeded in 1889 by Wilford Woodruff. And in 1890, Woodruff, who the Utah History Encyclopedia says initially had supported the practice of polygamy, issued what became known as the 1890 Manifesto: “I publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriages forbidden by the law of the land.”

A condition for Utah getting statehood, which it won 1896, was a ban on polygamy in its constitution. And while the LDS Church teaches that Woodruff prayed for guidance, his words have been called a declaration, not a revelation. The feeling among fundamentalist Mormons is that government pressure, not faith, was behind the end of plural marriage.

Even with the manifesto, there was dissension within. Taylor ’s son, John W. Taylor, was an apostle in the LDS Church. But he stepped down and was eventually excommunicated because of his continued support of plural marriages. For this reason he and his father are often held up as heroes among fundamentalist Mormons.

Fundamentalists splinter

What evolved in the 20th century, even after a second manifesto in 1904, was the quiet growth of a fundamentalist Mormon movement. The people within it held fast to their beliefs, even as the LDS Church tried to shut them and their practices down.

Fundamentalist Mormons see themselves as maintaining the core practices and beliefs of the LDS Church - including plural marriages. Many consider themselves Mormons, although the mainstream church itself won’t knowingly have anything to do with them and excommunicates them as quickly as it can find them.

Many LDS Church members, in fact, object to these people calling themselves fundamentalist "Mormons" as they feel there is nothing Mormon about them.

Fundamentalist Mormons say the apostles who’d been called by Taylor to perpetuate plural marriages later called new men to carry on the tradition. As a community, they settled along the Utah and Arizona border. But conflicts within the priesthood council about the succession of leadership would eventually lead to a split.

Today, there are a handful of fundamentalist Mormon groups, as well as polygamous families who call themselves independent.

Only one group has gone so far as to say that the mainstream LDS Church, in banning plural marriages, is guilty of apostasy. That group - the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - has gotten the most media attention.

The FLDS Church, with a membership of no more than 10,000, has seized headlines and spread an image of fundamentalist Mormon women wearing pastel prairie-style dresses and updos. The church's former leader, Warren Jeffs, was on the run until his 2006 arrest, and the raid on a Texas ranch in 2008 prompted allegations of forced marriages and child brides.

People like Wilde, the spokeswoman for Principle Voices, are quick to say that FLDS and fundamentalist Mormons are not synonymous.

“Please don’t paint us with the same brush,” says Wilde, who dresses in modern clothing, wears her hair short and insists that no one seeing her walk down the street would peg her as a woman in a plural marriage.

She wants people to see her, and women like her - including those featured on “Sister Wives” - as thinking and believing women.

They’re educated, she says. They work. They don’t live off the government. Their kids go to school and are showered with love and company. They have one-on-one sexual relations with their husbands. They went into plural marriages as consenting adults with eyes, hearts and minds open.

And, she says, they’re not hurting anyone.

Though Wilde’s husband died eight years ago, she says the 33-year marriage was wonderful. She won’t say how many sister wives she had - “only two of us are still living” - but she says the arrangement allowed her independence and that she never had to worry about her husband being alone.

“We don’t want it legalized. We want it decriminalized,” she says of plural, spiritual marriages. “We'd just as soon they [government officials] stay out of our marriages. Our marriage is for all time and eternity. The priesthood is the important thing, not the law of the land.”


soundoff (688 Responses)
  1. bes

    I can't believe I'm about to say this but I have seen the show and find this family to be good. He appears to care about these women and the women have lives that don't revolve around him. The first wife appears bright and put together, the other two so-so, but overall they seem happy and the kids appear to have goals for their lives and have ambition outside of having babies and giving birth. Okay the concept is icky, but to each his own. This great country was built on the concept of freedom of religon (sp).

    October 25, 2010 at 2:41 pm |
  2. Dawn

    TLC isn't The Learning Channel any more.
    It's the side show, freak channel. Hey everyone! Look at how effed up these people are!

    October 25, 2010 at 2:40 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @Dawn

      Isn't one of the point's of the TLC (The Learning Channel), is to watch and *learn* about things that we may not know a lot about...?

      I found the show 'interesting.' And... I really enjoy the TLC Channel.

      October 25, 2010 at 3:31 pm |
    • Dawn

      We learn by their exploitation. Take the Jon + Kate debacle for instance. We were just 'learning' about how their family operates... until our learning of them started to affect how their family worked, and ultimately doomed it, because one wanted to be famous, and the other was tired of all of the crap.

      And Hoarders. We learn about their mental problems, while someone profits from people feeling sorry for them.

      And now there's going to be Sarah Palin on there. We can learn how to be an idiot and lead other idiots by idiocy, and how to shoot wolves from a helicopter! Joy.

      The only shows I can really think of on there anymore that aren't some direct form of exploiting someone's suffering are the cake shows.

      October 25, 2010 at 4:49 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @Dawn

      Nice point... Interesting. I guess, I would want to explore your concept of 'exploitation.'

      Nowadays, we have a lot of 'reality' based t.v. programming. T.V. stations certainly make money. Again, the programs I find on there are typically interesting, such as "Sister Wives." It gave me, and others a more 'realistic' (assuming) look into what it is really like in polygamous marriages. When typically they are usually vilified.

      Sometimes, I think the more we understand something, the less 'ignorant' we are about someone or something, and maybe we may be less to vilify them.

      And as for, Sarah Palin, while I admit that she's not my favorite politician in the world, I might watch it, to 'learn' a bit more about her, to see if my 'assumptions' about her are correct, or wrong, or something else.

      So, Dawn, thank you for the interesting discussion on this...!

      Peace...

      October 25, 2010 at 5:40 pm |
    • Frogist

      @Peace2all: I like reality tv. Not all of it much anymore because it's the same old same old. But I wonder how this show, or Jon & Kate and their litter, etc really differ from Jersey Shore. It's really just us looking at a different situation and eventually ending up with the realization, that thank goodness we're not them. There is some worth in a day to day revelation of the different problems that come up and how different people really cope with them. But we can get that in a good docu-mentary. Reality shows like this have a certain freakshow quality to them. There is a certain exploitation going on. But I'm inclined to think that's a two-way street. TLC is taking advantage of an opportunity but so are this family. They are obviously getting something out of it.
      Oh god I'm not sure I'll be able to stomach the Sarah Palin one. Unless they have more Levi... Two bigger publicity wh0res you could not find.

      October 26, 2010 at 12:38 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @Frogist

      Hey CM..!

      Pure and simple.... I love doc-u-mentaries...!!! And, these kind of 'reality' show's, I like 'some' of them too. I found it quite interesting watching this show.

      The value in it for me was watching and learning about the transactions, which caused 'conversation' on this topic. I was glad to see it, and stand by my post. The whole exploitation thing.... when it comes to tv... who, in general, isn't getting exploited...?

      I did not find, the "look at how 'effed' up" these people are in 'this' series as @Dawn put it. Quite the contrary, I learned a lot, and now have a better understanding as to how some, or at least this one particular 'polygamist family' works.

      I enjoy seeing people doing 'different' things... I believe it helps me understand, a lot more about people and our world.

      Peace...

      October 26, 2010 at 12:45 pm |
    • David Johnson

      Hmmm....There was this one woman, who appeared at the Jeffs' trial. She had this unibrow...

      October 26, 2010 at 6:52 pm |
  3. Dawn

    If I had a daughter, I would want her to grow up expecting to be someone's #1 some day. To, by one person, be held above all others. How do they want their daughters to grow up? Just cattle to be inseminated?

    I have a son though. I would most definitely not be happy if he thought he was going to grow up to have such a herd of cattle, that women are there to be collected. That if he has one, he should ever EVER go looking for another!

    These women aren't thinking about their kids, or anything but themselves. Their self worth, or lack thereof, shows brightly.

    October 25, 2010 at 2:39 pm |
    • opinion

      Show me a man who finds it perfectly acceptable to be part of a harem and I will accept this relationship. Until then, condoning of this will not hold water with me ever. These women are all suffering from low self esteem and delusions.

      October 25, 2010 at 2:56 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @opinion

      A harem could be fun. multiple women all oiled up and fighting for my attention... Never mind!

      October 25, 2010 at 3:11 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Dawn

      I don't agree with the Mormons, fundamentalists or otherwise. But, you are not putting their beliefs into your thoughts. They believe a woman's duty is to have babies. God wants it that way. The men believe they can get their own planet if they have enough wives and kids. It sounds silly to you, but your beliefs are odd to me.

      October 25, 2010 at 3:16 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @opinion

      See David Johnson's post...

      October 25, 2010 at 3:28 pm |
    • Frogist

      @Peace2all and David Johnson: Hmmm a harem consisting of you guys? ummm I plead the fifth.

      October 26, 2010 at 12:20 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @Frogist

      Yeah... probably best that you 'plead the 5th.' But, hey CK, you know.. even SM needs uh... company..!

      October 26, 2010 at 8:34 pm |
  4. Paul

    I agree with the majority that feel people should be left to ake thier own decisions. If they are happy, not bothering anyone leave them be and thats one of the big problems in this country; The Goverment wants to control everything and should try running thier own business and get us 0ut of debt, not worrying about how many wivies I have. And no, Im not telling you.

    October 25, 2010 at 2:38 pm |
  5. Steve

    This article's mistreatment of the term "Mormon" makes it clear that the author's point is to group members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and members of splinter groups such as the FLDS together. Ms. Ravitz uses the term Mormon to describe both types of people without consistently distinguishing between the two. The practices and beliefs of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is very different from the FLDS and other religions that practice polygamy, and the polygamist lifestyles recently being represented in the media in no way reflect the lifestyle of active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

    October 25, 2010 at 2:37 pm |
    • Martin

      Steve,

      Mormons follow Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and their successors. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and their successors taught that it was commanded by God to practice polygamy (D&C 132 etc). BY summed it up when he wrote “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" Journal of Discourses 11:269, 1866.

      If you are Mormon, you subscribe to what they taught was revealed to them by God, and they taught and believed that polygamy was a divine command. It's not my fault your branch of Mormonism has fallen off the wagon. Anne Wilde is more faithful to the "restored" Gospel than you are.

      Personally, I'm disgusted at the outcomes (the fruit) of Mormonism. Not least by the number of posts above in which people have expressed their disillusion with the Christian Gospel because of some 19th Century self-proclaimed prophet with a zipper problem decided to re-invent it. If you're going to "restore" it, why not restore something that looks something like the original without the polygamist turn-men-into-gods program that Smith and Co authored.

      October 29, 2010 at 8:10 am |
  6. Denver RMA

    This guy and his 'family' are a DRAIN on the resources that all of us rely upon. Can you imagine the Carbon Footprint this 'family' has!? If you want to marry multiple wives, that great, but use a condom!

    October 25, 2010 at 2:34 pm |
    • MrsFizzy

      I agree ...but their religion probably doesn't believe in carbon footprints, or birth control – the point is to breed as many more like them as they can!!

      October 25, 2010 at 3:13 pm |
  7. Angie

    I always believed in live and let live but this is so demoralizing to women. Who supports who? Kody is driving a shiny white high dollar sports car and one of the wives drives a broken down old chevy or pontiac. Who is making bank here?

    October 25, 2010 at 2:34 pm |
  8. mel

    Jim Bob Duggar of the 19 children show wasn't pig enough for us. Now they expect us to watch this new weirdo? Can we please have some shows of real accomplishments?

    October 25, 2010 at 2:33 pm |
    • Frogist

      @mel: I'm partial to Dirty Jobs on Discovery. Mike Rowe is da man!

      October 26, 2010 at 12:14 pm |
  9. MJ

    The beauty of religion is that it allows you to justify your vice. Hasn't this always been the case?

    October 25, 2010 at 2:32 pm |
    • David Johnson

      I miss Raison. People shouldn't change their screen names. It's like losing a friend.

      October 26, 2010 at 6:48 pm |
  10. Sean

    Socially and scientifically, this is not sustainable. There are equal number of male and female in this country, minus off gays and lesbians, each man can only have a woman as wife, if not, there'll be not enough women to go around. Unless you allow the women to have more than one husband....

    October 25, 2010 at 2:30 pm |
    • Shannon

      You might be right, but then you'd be assuming that everyone wants to get married, that everyone wants a plural marriage, and that there are EXACTLY an equal amount fo males and females on the planet.

      I think the planet can sustain a few polygamists.

      October 25, 2010 at 2:56 pm |
  11. Gort01

    someone needs to tell Cody its not 1973 and he can cut his hair any time. But other than that, I think we need to leave them alone. I dont care how many wives a person has, or husbands for that matter. If they are all adults....by that I mean 21 or older, and are consensual....for all parties free of coercion and trhreats... If the "marriage and home and children" are happy and well cared for...why should we care...???

    October 25, 2010 at 2:28 pm |
    • marcia

      We can't leave them alone now!
      They wanted to become a public
      item....and now they are!

      October 25, 2010 at 2:31 pm |
  12. Michael

    Stop using the word Mormon when talking about these polygamists. When "Mormon" is used, a connection to the LDS church is assumed. These people are members of the FLDS church, a group that split off generations ago and practice a different system of beliefs.

    October 25, 2010 at 2:28 pm |
    • Gort01

      michael: we all know that there are Mormons that support and participate in pleural marriage, just like these people. Calling them Reorg, Non, Fundamentalist, etc etc....doesnt change the fact that they are MORMONS......thats it....get over it...

      October 25, 2010 at 2:30 pm |
    • Jeff

      20 polygamists can't commit as much evil as 1 Catholic priest.

      October 25, 2010 at 2:45 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Jeff

      You said, "20 polygamists can't commit as much evil as 1 Catholic priest."

      Jeff is right! This is supposed to be about how the Catholics are evil. Stay on topic, people!

      October 25, 2010 at 3:20 pm |
    • David

      Gort01: 'we all know there are mormons who suport and participate in plural marriage..?"

      Perhaps you shouldn't speak for 'all' of us in the world...Mormons do not support or practice polygamy....get over it...the information you received from SouthPark and other non-credible sources is false. Open your eyes, read a book. do something before your ignorance gets you into trouble.

      October 25, 2010 at 3:38 pm |
  13. pearl

    I think plural marriages is only adultry that has been rationalized by the men who dont want to feel guilty about cheating on their "true" wife.

    October 25, 2010 at 2:27 pm |
    • Kera

      I completely agree with you. How come it's okay for man to have many wives but not the other way around? TLC should be embarrassed that they put this on the air. But mabye we'll see a few good fights like on John and Kate plus 8.

      October 25, 2010 at 2:56 pm |
    • dt

      So, do you think cheating on your spouse should be made illegal?

      October 25, 2010 at 2:57 pm |
    • civilioutside

      while it may be true of fundamentalist Mormons, it is not necessarily true of all people who favor plural marriages that they all think only the man should be allowed multiple spouses.

      October 25, 2010 at 3:25 pm |
    • Miss Em

      Actually, @dt, adultery is still illegal in over twenty states.

      October 25, 2010 at 3:58 pm |
    • Kera

      DT last time I checked in my state it is illegal. Infact, the person engaged in the affair/relationship/helped the other person cheat can be sued by the spouse. Which I think is great.

      October 26, 2010 at 11:36 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Kera

      You said, " How come it's okay for man to have many wives but not the other way around? "

      Because we are men. That was a silly question.

      October 27, 2010 at 9:37 pm |
  14. Frank

    Reading the pro poly marriage posts illustrates the 'slippery slope' arguments.

    Once you make morality situational and not absolute you have no argument against anything.

    Welcome to the 21st century.

    Next, they will talk about consenting 11 year olds.

    October 25, 2010 at 2:24 pm |
    • dt

      Not really a logical statement. You're starting with an implication, which never works. Kinda like "plural marriage is bad, next they'll want to kill babies." Oh gee! Killing babies is bad! Stop the palygamists!!!

      October 25, 2010 at 2:53 pm |
    • N' Beans

      Actually Frank is right. If morals are relative, why punish anyone for anything? Hitler would not have been wrong for what he had done. But that is not the case. Sane humanity recognizes that we need laws and rules of right and wrong.

      October 25, 2010 at 3:36 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @N' Beans

      You Said...

      "Actually Frank is right. If morals are relative, why punish anyone for anything? Hitler would not have been wrong for what he had done. But that is not the case. Sane humanity recognizes that we need laws and rules of right and wrong."

      Me- I agree, I believe as a society, we need laws and rules of right and wrong. And we seem to have those in place... don't we...? You know, the one's that we, as a society vote on, and are made law. Look to the const-i-tution, bill of rights, federal, local and state laws, etc.... that are continually being looked at and refined as needed... yes..?

      So, what is your point exactly...?

      October 25, 2010 at 5:31 pm |
  15. Brian

    Isn't this thing called religion amazing!

    October 25, 2010 at 2:24 pm |
    • Bobolink

      No.

      October 25, 2010 at 3:54 pm |
    • jesus

      RELIGION....Where else does an adult get to speak to his or her imaginary and invisible friend in the sky (i.e. "praying") and get answers that only her or she can hear? I hear a voice in my head is OK if in the name of religion. Any other time, they'd throw a net around you and take you away.

      October 25, 2010 at 7:29 pm |
  16. Ga Peach

    I agree that if this kind of mariage is concensual and they are all OK with it, then let them be! However, I feel sorry for their children will will be taunted and made fun of....and you know they will be! They are not the ones to choose this lifestyle! Also I don't know a man who could handle 4 women unless the women need him emotionally rather than physically!
    Note to 14401 I wouldn't envy him if I were you, with 4 wives comes 4 mother-in-laws. Be careful what you wish for!!

    October 25, 2010 at 2:24 pm |
  17. Andrew

    1 step away from caveman society. I understand the appeal, it comes from the part of the brain that really doesn't do much thinking. You know, the part that controls animalistic impulses.

    October 25, 2010 at 2:24 pm |
    • Sandra

      Reality: there already is a book like that. It is the BIBLE. The problem is, it has been misinterpreted by millions of people with self-serving interests, instead of prayerfully and humbly seeking GOD for direction. Read up on Joseph Smith–he was an absolute fraud. And read up on Mohammed, too. He was a vengeful, violent, spiteful man who wanted acceptance into Judaism-and when that failed, went on a slaughtering spree all throughout Persia.

      October 25, 2010 at 2:26 pm |
    • Andrew

      I agree with you. As far as the people who had a lot to do with starting these big religions I don't know much about them, but blind faith is pitiful. You have to squeeze your eyes pretty tightly shut to swallow any of this cr*p. Poor lost souls.

      October 25, 2010 at 2:32 pm |
    • RZ

      @Sandra – Please provide some scholarly evidence with page numbers how Muhammad went on a killing spree in Persia. He never even stepped OUT of Arabia EVER in his whole life. Please don't make uneducated comments about things you haven't read up on at all. And don't even get me started on the violent passages in the bible.

      October 25, 2010 at 2:48 pm |
    • dt

      Animalistic impulses? Ok, so what impulse are the women following?

      October 25, 2010 at 2:49 pm |
    • Juliax

      dt – to answer what impulses the women are following – insecurity, low self-esteem and deep depencency issues.

      October 25, 2010 at 3:50 pm |
  18. Jane

    Sorry folks, but those women do not look happy on that show...and like any other reality show... their family will suffer. They should keep the cameras out of the house. Go ahead and live your life the way you want, but don't broadcast it.

    October 25, 2010 at 2:20 pm |
    • Yup

      I agree Jane. Reality tv is not REAL FOLKS!!!!! I can't believe people are reallly this dumb to believe that any reality show is not edited to appear certain ways. I bet they can edit a torture chamber to make it look like the prisoners are having a good time. Besides, those women DON'T look happy. They can't even fake it well enough for the cameras. People are such dopes.

      October 25, 2010 at 3:26 pm |
    • Tetbury

      I agree, didn't think those women were totally happy. First wife certainly had issues with jealousy and she's the one picking the last wife!

      October 25, 2010 at 4:43 pm |
  19. opinion

    I wish the media and television would quit glorifying this crap that everyone knows is a bunch of garbage. Any man knows beyond a quick fling that he doesnt want a household full of women and I wish women would quit catering to this type of garbage. I am quite sure that they are supporting him.

    October 25, 2010 at 2:20 pm |
  20. KB

    I think people have to keep in mind that polygamy is a lifstyle. Gays have a lifestyle. Tradtional marriage is a lifestyle. Lifestyles which all involve consenting adults, happy with their chose. I personally wouldn't choose plural marriage but apparently there are many women out there who are quite happy with it. And I don't think it is really all about the man. It looks to me like the women thrive on the female companionship; maybe more than the relationship with the man. The only thing I found odd was the jealousy issues that came up during the show. Didn't get that. I also don't believe this Kody Brown can possibly feel the exact same way toward each and every one of these women. Would think there's a big difference between making love to his second wife and his new fourth wife.

    October 25, 2010 at 2:19 pm |
    • BK

      You didnt understand the jealousy issues? Are you new to the planet Earth? It might have a little something to do with the fact that your husband is boning three other chicks. That might spark a wee bit of jealousy.

      October 25, 2010 at 3:22 pm |
    • Tetbury

      You missed the point BK. If one is going to enter into a plural marriage, then one already KNOWS there are other women. Jealousy shouldn't even come up.

      October 25, 2010 at 4:40 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Being gay is not a *chosen* lifestyle. Noone has ever chosen to be gay. Choosing to be believe in the supernatural or to have multiple wives or husbands is not the same thing as being gay.

      October 25, 2010 at 5:31 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.