The husband also has the responsibility to love and respect his wife does he not? If the wife considers a second wife (it is irrelevant in this argument if it is the concept of a 2nd wife in general or a specific 2nd wife) such an abomination that her life would become a sea of melancholy, can he really claim that he loves the 1st wife?
Also, is it not the paramount directive to save the sanctuary of the marriage? If a 2nd wife would cause the 1st to file for divorce is he not his duty to refrain from actions that endanger the marriage?
Now, you might argue that if the 1st wife is the one that files for divorce then it falls on her. If you argue that then demonstrate logical subsumption and causality.
I will respond to this under the single optimistic assumption that your response is genuine. And if it continues to be hostile I will disengage. This may be long; there is a summary at the end.
First, my response was primarily to the "Mormon-ish" aspects of the statement by
@IndianaLife . That response is informed by long deep conversations, fasting, prayer and decades of searching and translating. It is also just my view and others are free to agree or disagree. YMMV
Second, whether deliberately or not, your syllogistic frame is flawed. I do not say this as an attack, but an observation. If you consider what I say here you might understand that from the perspective of many here you are constantly arguing that "...all birds are ducks."
You seem to have approached many, if not most of the topics you respond to as if the Laws of God and the Laws of Man are an All-You-Can-Eat Buffet and you can just pick and choose a particular Law of God when it is convenient or agreeable to you, but then choose a Law (or Tradition or Philosophy) of Man when the Law of God in question causes you some distress or misunderstanding. Do not perceive this as an attack; it's not. All of us have been given our start in this World in whatever culture we were born or driven into and are primed to view things from that perspective. Societal "programming" is a real thing.
Most here on this Forum, are trying to overcome their Societal programming and allow themselves to operate according to the principles espoused by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They, as do I, believe His Ways are above our ways and that there are just things that an All-Knowing God knows that we do not, and understands that we do not. This does not seem to be your frame and as such you argue past and around points people here make while not acknowledging their presumptions. This is not logic, or at least the use of logic for the purposes of understanding.
This is evident, specifically by your question implying that the "paramount directive" is "to save the sanctuary of the marriage." Awkward phraseology aside, this is in err. You have subsumed God to Marriage. Most here subsume Marriage to God. Full stop.
If your intentions on this forum are truly to learn rather than foment, this may very well be the reason you have trouble understanding the varied, but generally similar, opinions expressed on this site.
In the Frame in which most people here are attempting to operate, we are required to live "in the world" but not be "of the world". We are also to subsume our perceived needs and desires to those God requires of us. We are also to subsume the Laws of Man to the Laws of God where they conflict. This may be difficult at times and may be fraught with the possibility of prosecution by the Laws of Man.
This also means that our feelings are not always indicators of good or bad, right or wrong, love hate or disinterest.
If my wife wants something but it is not in the budget, she usually does not get it. Same for my wants. But this does not mean I don't love her. She may also want something that is needed but want it to be purple. If purple is not available but red or green is, it is still needed, Again, we now have a red or green thing that is needed and she's not as happy as she would have been had it been purple, but a purple one was not available. But that does not mean I don't love or respect her. Hopefully she will recognize the that the need for the item is more important than the desire for the item to be purple, and will subsume her desire (feelings) about the color to the need for the item.
In my past as both a manager and a business owner I have had to hire people for positions that the existing employees did not want. Sometimes the concerns were legitimate, other times the concerns were ego driven. But I had to use my judgement and exercise my authority and mission to strengthen the company/department. In some cases an existing employee (some of them good productive employees) refused to accept it and left the company. In other cases the existing employees endured the temporary inconvenience and learned how to work with the new person as the new person learned to work with the existing ones. In both cases the business or the department was made stronger through the addition even though it was less optimal because of the loss of another good employee. The employee that left bears all the responsibility for their actions. If they caused trouble in the company or department because of their feelings, not my fault. If they leave employment, unfortunate but not my fault.
Not wanting to be cold and hard, but the same is true for a marriage. Causality.
Executive Summary: (drawing on my above answer and other sources in this Forum)
1. My statement was primarily concerning the Law of Sarah, from one of a number of Mormon-ish perspectives, and your response talked right past it without regard to the intent or content. Specifically the content that implied I believe it would be unwise for a man to make such an addition to his Family without at least the knowledge and counsel from his FW (or existing) wife or wives.
2. Your frame of reference seems to be an à la carte view of the Laws of God & the Laws of Man.
3. Most here believe in a more table d'hôte view of the Laws of God & the Laws of Man.
4. Most here believe God loves us and is infinitely wiser than us and that we subsume our flawed immature desires and perceptions of our needs to his mature perfect understanding of such.
5. As part of that understanding God has designed an authority structure as such: God --> Christ (if you're Christian) --> Man(Husband/Father[until marriage]) --> Woman
6. Both Men and Women have equal (not the same) responsibilities and rights under this structure, both to God and to each other.
7. Our feelings will naturally affect us, but we are to subsume our feelings, per #4, to the wisdom of God, per #5, regardless of our feelings or our understanding of why it must be. Husband submits to God and Wife submits to Husband regardless of feelings or understanding of why.
8. We all have agency to choose to follow God's Law or our own feelings. If we follow our feelings we are responsible for the demise of the marriage. This is causality.
9. If you,
@Maia, cannot progress in your grasp or acceptance of these things beyond the very basics of #3 & #4, you will be forever mired in the morass made by the syllogistic implications of #2. I'm not asking you to BELEIVE #3 & #4; I'm asking you to understand that that's where most people here are coming from and comment/question/argue accordingly.
10. As much as I love ducks (I've raised them and they're lots of fun, and good eatin') but, all birds are NOT ducks.
Again, just my opinions. And maybe I should have just posted the summary.
Also, for the record, I do appreciate the attempted intellectuality of your comments
@Maia. As long as you are truly seeking to understand, "Good on you."