Sister Wives - can we talk bout it?

[Created2Write]

Moses also told them they could write a paper of divorcement, which Jesus later said wasn't God's design.

Polygamy was allowed for a time, but it was never God's design.

Precisely.

 

[JohnDB]

Moses isn't God. Jesus Himself revised what Moses said about adultery. Just because Moses said it, doesn't mean it's what God wanted. Moses said that if a man wanted to divorce his wife, all he needed to do was give a certificate of divorce. But Jesus said that only adultery was reason enough to divorce.

Moses isn't the final word when it comes to what is sin and what isn't.

Try telling that to those who died in the desert every time they went against what Moses said.

And you can't make a case for adultery here. They are married and cared for. That is the exact opposite of adultery.

 

[Created2Write]

Try telling that to those who died in the desert every time they went against what Moses said.

So you live your life based entirely off of the law that Moses wrote? You stone adulteresses? You don't eat pork or any other unclean animal? You don't touch your wife when she's menstruating?

God is a higher authority than Moses. God created one woman, Eve, for one man, Adam.

And you can't make a case for adultery here. They are married and cared for. That is the exact opposite of adultery.

I'm not making a case for adultery. My point was that what Moses said about adultery was altered by Jesus. Therefore, we have to take the law of Moses under careful consideration. What the NT says about marriage is very different than what was lived in the OT. Perhaps polygamy was allowed then, but now, I do believe that it's sin. That's merely my opinion based off of my own personal interpretation of scripture, so no one else has to agree. But I won't be told that I'm going off the deep end, as you put it, just because you disagree.

 

[JohnDB]

So you live your life based entirely off of the law that Moses wrote? You stone adulteresses? You don't eat pork or any other unclean animal? You don't touch your wife when she's menstruating?

God is a higher authority than Moses. God created one woman, Eve, for one man, Adam.



I'm not making a case for adultery. My point was that what Moses said about adultery was altered by Jesus. Therefore, we have to take the law of Moses under careful consideration. What the NT says about marriage is very different than what was lived in the OT. Perhaps polygamy was allowed then, but now, I do believe that it's sin. That's merely my opinion based off of my own personal interpretation of scripture, so no one else has to agree. But I won't be told that I'm going off the deep end, as you put it, just because you disagree.

My point is that obviously for you and me it is wrong. We have no desire to be in such a lifestyle. BUT in light of "NO CONDEMNATION for those of us in Christ Jesus" including those patriarchs in the past of their lifestyle choices...where polygamy was common even in the New Testament Church...I am not going to claim the lifestyle to be sinful and all those who wish for such a lifestyle to be desiring a sinful lifestyle.

I see them wanting a strong family and having strong family values. That isn't sin. Just the opposite. And claiming something good to be evil is really close to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I am just cautioning you about going to far with condemnation for everyone who does wish for this lifestyle.

 

[Created2Write]

My point is that obviously for you and me it is wrong. We have no desire to be in such a lifestyle. BUT in light of "NO CONDEMNATION for those of us in Christ Jesus" including those patriarchs in the past of their lifestyle choices...where polygamy was common even in the New Testament Church...I am not going to claim the lifestyle to be sinful and all those who wish for such a lifestyle to be desiring a sinful lifestyle.

As I said, although it may have been allowed then, I think that now it's sin. You can disagree.

I see them wanting a strong family and having strong family values. That isn't sin. Just the opposite. And claiming something good to be evil is really close to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I am just cautioning you about going to far with condemnation for everyone who does wish for this lifestyle.

Claiming something good to be evil is not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Contributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, I don't believe polygamy is a good thing at all. Most of the relationships in the OT that involved polygamy were highly dysfunctional. Yes, monogamous relationships can be dysfunctional too, but in the OT it seems to me that those polygamist relationships were dysfunctional because they were polygamist relationships. Jealousy was everywhere. Anger. Dissension. Disrespect.

Again, it's all my personal opinion.

 

[Puffinstuff]

And, you mentioned earlier I believe that one of your objections to the Duggars is that you find it hard to believe that the parents can be good, involved parents to that many children. I find the same thing to be true of these families in terms of the father figure. He's a father to tons of kids, and I've seen/heard them complaining about never getting to see him and spend time with him.

I agree his attention being divided up between many wives not just many children.Who all need individual and separate attention from him besides the kids.He doesn't live under the same roof either with each mother and child or children for more than a week at a time.On top of depending how many wives he could theoretictly be having many "newborns" a year every year which is not possible with one wife.As to enlisting the older children to help?The the older ones "helping" would get younger and younger.Not to mention unless each wife expected or desired no or very little time with the husband he would be even less scarce to his children trying to be available to the wives.

I don't think that's God's plan for us to be an ant farm.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

It may be called "modern", but as mentioned before, these women were all raised in the lifestyle just as the women Romans is referring to were. So why is it being seen by you as so different? They're not underage and uneducated as many others were/are, but I still see plenty of dissension, jealousy, hurt feelings, and emotionally neglected children and wives on the show even as they try to play it up as this great, modern re-vamping of polygamy.

Which are struggles that a great number of people, plural marriage or not, deal with. I've seen people, just on here, complain of the jealousy of seeing a spouse pay particular attention to another person or event or activity, of the dissension in a marriage when one acts in a way not in accordance with what the other wants or feels is best, hurt feelings from everything to the ridiculous to the serious. If we were to analyze the benefits of monogamous, single marriage by the posts on this board, one could easily say that marriage isn't worth the trouble it brings. Every single one of the arguments leveled against plural marriage, coercion, abuse, sinful behavior, etc etc... That could all be brought to the doorstep of a single marriage.

Yet we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, deem all marriage a waste, an invitation of misery and heartache. We find the positives and focus on them, we explore our faith and how marriage is strengthened by it and how we strengthen our faith through marriage. We look to God, the Bible, religious peers, leaders to find how to live in accordance with God... We operate under the passionate belief that, when it's at it's worst, we want to try to at least work through it in a way that pleases God and honors our vows to our partner.

A polygamous marriage does the same, exact thing. Just with more spouses. People can't see past the extra spouse to see that, the reason for what they're doing, is that they believe they're abiding in their faith.

I don't think the issue is here that I'm treating it differently then a singular marriage. The issue is I'm treating the same as a singular marriage. I'm not in a polygamous marriage, nor will I ever be in one or strive to be in one, but that said, I can see why people arrive at the place where they do it, and as long as everybody consents to it, then it's entirely none of my business. It's not my marriage. It's not my dynamic. It's not my relationship. It's not my understanding of God. But it is theirs.

And you can say whatever you want about the show, their lifestyle, the husband, the wives, but there is no way that you can look at what's going on there and arrive at the conclusion that it involves anything other then 4 consenting adults in a consenting relationship, where nobody was forced in, where nobody is forced to stay, and where any of them can throw up their hands and say "I'm done." For all of their faults, and trust me, I think there's a ton of them, by what we've seen on the show and what has been shared about them personally, they have proven that they're not taking this lightly, that they are investing themselves as if it were a marriage. There have been 100 times on the show and off of it where I can certainly imagine it'd be easier for one, some, or all to just walk away. And they didn't. They stuck it out, and continue to do so. They've more then proven that this is a lifestyle they've adopted, for all it's ups and downs, because it's what they feel they've been called to do. Even now, if somebody were to leave, there's not a person in the world who could say that they didn't try their hardest to make it work in the confines of what they believe is a true and serious, committed, and God blessed union in accordance to their beliefs. And I think it's disingenuous to not at least acknowledge that.

And I think it's double disingenuous to say that what is going on here is damaging, that their issues with jealousy and hurt feelings are this litmus test to prove that what's happening is wrong when we have monogamous married couples who come here and pour their hearts out of the same struggles, and worse, and the same people who tell these people that these struggles are proof their lifestyle is wrong are the same people who'll tell the monogamous struggling couples here to hang on, that it'll get better, that God wants them to stay married, that marriage is ups and downs and it can be worked through. Seriously, how many partners dealing with jealousy, with affairs, serial adultery, dissension in the marriage, abuse, hurt feelings, loss of trust, etc etc have come here and been told to stick it out, because it's what pleases God? Even in instances where it appears blatantly obvious to me, for whatever reason, this person needs to leave because their story will not have a happy ending, there's at least one person who states that they need to hang on, work on it, and try. Yet when those issues pop up in a plural marriage, why would it get the "I told you so" and "what do you expect" and the shaking heads that say "that's why this type of marriage doesn't work?" They're something to be braved out in a singular marriage, but an obvious sign of dysfunction in a plural marriage? Sorry, that defies logic.

When it comes down to it, it's still one man married to more than one woman, and the root problems for the women in that situation remain the same. And, you mentioned earlier I believe that one of your objections to the Duggars is that you find it hard to believe that the parents can be good, involved parents to that many children. I find the same thing to be true of these families in terms of the father figure. He's a father to tons of kids, and I've seen/heard them complaining about never getting to see him and spend time with him.

And if the root problems are something they're willing to tackle, more power to them. They acknowledge it and work on it, just as do their monogamous peers. It's not a sign of dysfunction or this a-ha moment of proof that the system is broken. It just means the marriage that they've chosen to enter into for their spiritual reasons has the same demons to overcome that a singular marriage does.

Yes, one of my concerns for the Duggars is that none of the kids get the attention they deserve. Obviously that holds true for this family, especially with the father and at least 2 of the mothers who hold down jobs outside of the home. But I didn't say that the Duggars should stop having kids, that their lifestyle was broken, or that what they were doing was wrong, sinful, and should be perpetuated. I said it's a concern their lifestyle invites. It's not a concern that I hold exclusive to them. I think it's a struggle for all families. Truth be absolutely told, I personally struggle with it more then anything else in the world... I work 10-13 hour days 6 days a week, and that 7th day, my day off, I still work 5 or so hours. I found a job that I can do from home that I enjoy that is setting us free of debt and it's brought immeasurable relief, but my struggle is that I feel like I'm not with the kids as I should be and I don't make myself available to them like I should because I'm ALWAYS working. Then when I make myself available and work less, I feel guilt that I'm not doing all that I could to help the family financially. It's a constant struggle. It's not a sign that the family unit is broken or my lifestyle is wrong... It's just my particular issue to my particular marriage.

This issue, obviously a very serious one for both families. One family I see try to manage it (polygamist), the other I see accepting this absence as a normality of the family structure (Duggars). Yet when I point it out for the Duggars, I'm told to leave them alone because it's their choice and they're following God as they see appropriate. When the same thing is pointed out for the polygamists, it's yet another checkmark on the list of why their lifestyle is wrong.

For the record, I think neither is right or wrong, I think as consenting adults they have a right to their life. As long as they're not pulling government resources to sustain it (a concern I apply to all people, actually), and everybody consents to it, I don't care how badly it'd work for me, my relationship, or my faith... Because it's not my dynamic. I don't need to accept it, because it's not me.

I think God created the goggles of singular marriage.

They think differently and use the same Bible to support it. So the impasse continues.

 

[Puffinstuff]

My point is that obviously for you and me it is wrong. We have no desire to be in such a lifestyle. BUT in light of "NO CONDEMNATION for those of us in Christ Jesus" including those patriarchs in the past of their lifestyle choices...where polygamy was common even in the New Testament Church...I am not going to claim the lifestyle to be sinful and all those who wish for such a lifestyle to be desiring a sinful lifestyle.

Slavery was common as well.And not condemned.I would certainly condemn anyone owning a slave in the name of God.And I will claim it a sinful lifestyle and to be desiring a sinful lifestyle without blinking.

 

[JohnDB]

As I said, although it may have been allowed then, I think that now it's sin. You can disagree.



Claiming something good to be evil is not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Contributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, I don't believe polygamy is a good thing at all. Most of the relationships in the OT that involved polygamy were highly dysfunctional. Yes, monogamous relationships can be dysfunctional too, but in the OT it seems to me that those polygamist relationships were dysfunctional because they were polygamist relationships. Jealousy was everywhere. Anger. Dissension. Disrespect.

Again, it's all my personal opinion.

As far as Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit definition you are playing a dangerous game of semantics and splitting hairs. We are saying the exact same thing as it's definition...but you are not recognizing that. Think through what you have typed in answer...it is the exact same thing. (different keystrokes yes, but meaning the exact same thing)

Evil is of Satan...good is of God.

Also in the Old and New Testament there were two things completely different but related. Jealousy and Envy...One was OK and normal...IE wanting a spouse like everyone else VX the evil counterpart wanting someone else's spouse simply because they had one.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I agree his attention being divided up between many wives not just many children.Who all need individual and separate attention from him besides the kids.He doesn't live under the same roof either with each mother and child or children for more than a week at a time.On top of depending how many wives he could theoretictly be having many "newborns" a year every year which is not possible with one wife.As to enlisting the older children to help?The the older ones "helping" would get younger and younger.Not to mention unless each wife expected or desired no or very little time with the husband he would be even less scarce to his children trying to be available to the wives.

I don't think that's God's plan for us to be an ant farm.

You realize that almost all of this applies, detail to detail, to the Duggars, correct?

The big difference is that people like them and support their lifestyle because they see the rationality of it spiritually, even if they don't agree to it. The same isn't said for the polygamists, so the same struggles that the polygamists have as the Duggars are seen as an omen of wrongdoing.

 

[Puffinstuff]

You realize that almost all of this applies, detail to detail, to the Duggars, correct?

The big difference is that people like them and support their lifestyle because they see the rationality of it spiritually, even if they don't agree to it. The same isn't said for the polygamists, so the same struggles that the polygamists have as the Duggars are seen as an omen of wrongdoing.

No it doesnt...he has one wife.Not many wives and children to divide his attention among.Even though I think it takes a rare person to even have 20 children and one wife or a woman to have 20 children and one husband to pay attention to.Its throwing in a few more "spouses" to appease is even more complicated.And not even close to applying detail to detail.It would add a lot more "detail " to my life If I had one more husband tomorrow than if I had one more child tomorrow.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Out of curiosity, who was the member here back in the day, a year or two ago, back when I was first a regular, who was the husband half to a polygamist union? I'm having a brain cramp, but who was that? Anybody know where he went? Out of curiosity only, not thinking of or trying to summon him here.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

No it doesnt...he has one wife.Not many wives and children to divide his attention among.Even though I think it takes a rare person to even have 20 children and one wife or a woman to have 20 children and one husband to pay attention to.Its throwing in a few more "spouses" to appease is even more complicated.And not even close to applying detail to detail.It would add a lot more "detail " to my life If I had one more husband tomorrow than if I had one more child tomorrow.

So you think a man who has to divide his attentions amongst 20 children and a wife is more then capable of doing so, that he's managing to fulfill the emotional need of every child, the emotional need of his wife, his personal, work, and financial obligations?

You know that Mrs. Duggar states that to not be the case:

http://www.southheightsbaptist.com/mp3/CliffPalmer/7BasicNeeds_Husband.pdf

There is the PDF of a helpful sermon that she recounts during her seminars.

One of her tips to be happy in a marriage, according to the PDF is to understand that your husband will not fill your emotional needs as you would need him to, but to know that what isn't sustained by him is sustained by God, and to not seek any emotional support to replace that of your husband without asking his approval first.

A wife is to ensure that her husband's needs come first and that a good wife she needs to know her expectations destroy gratefulness and that truly successful marriages consist of wives who acknowledge the best husbands withhold emotional needs as a correction to a wife who expects too much. The husband should give a wife less then she expects so as to decrease her expectations and increase her gratitude for what she has.

In her seminar, she has a whole section where she talks on how to be happy with your life even if you're not emotionally fulfilled.

So I say again, the Duggars, who can apparently do no wrong and are the example of strength and are rare people in their abilities, have the same struggles as the polygamist couples, and Mrs. Duggar has made a tidy living teaching that dutiful wives overcome lack of emotional fulfillment through other means of (husband approved) gratification. What you stated applies just the same to the polygamists as it does to the Duggars, though the polygamists reviled for it and the Duggars exhaled for it, for no reason other then the number of wives who're involved.

And I may add, the issues of indoctrination that is presenting a concern over the polygamist kids, which isn't occurring, is occurring in full force and without hint of anything different, at the Duggars.

 

[Puffinstuff]

Also one wife hits menopause their is no "new fertile wife" ready to keep having babies to one man in his 50's 60's and so on to where one "man" has 60 or 80 children.And the mothers are in affect "single" because "one man" cant spread his wealth unless he is a multii millionaire to effectively be even"1/2" the support to 100 children.One man to many wives could have been having grandchildren for decades while still producing new offspring.I dont think its "Gods order " for one man to have infants of his own while his children are having their grandchildren.If your "great " grandchildren are older than your youngest child somethings run amok.And that is what will happen with "multiple wives" .

 

[Puffinstuff]

So you think a man who has to divide his attentions amongst 20 children and a wife is more then capable of doing so, that he's managing to fulfill the emotional need of every child, the emotional need of his wife, his personal, work, and financial obligations?

Im saying one man with 4 wives and 20 children has to divide way more of his attention than one man with one wife and 20 children.Wives need attention.So having 3 more wives to pay attention to on top of 20 children is what I'm saying.

 

[iambren]

I've watched Sister Wives several times and concluded:

1 They are sincere in their religious beliefs.

2 They love their children, who appear happy.

3 They are respectful toward each other.
---actually seem more than average in maturity to make it work.

4 Must be given credit for holding the marriage together(better than today).

5 There appears to be no coercion of wives, or indoctrinating children.


My view? My hat's off to Kody. That man HAS to be relationally savvy, sensitive,energetic and loving toward his wives. Not to be mean but, if he's in it just for sex there are more beautiful women out there IMHO.
I would NOT want to be in his shoes; the complexity of ONE woman keeps me plenty busy.

I agree, the husband of one wife is the ideal. But God may not take as rigid a view of this as we presume eg Millinia ago there probably were wars that decimated the # of men, maybe 5 women per 1 man. Threat and danger may have lead to women to join a polygamous clan. This is functional; she is protected.

Modern day, polygamy still exists commonly in other countries. I made a friend who is a Christian in Tanzania. This is what his church faced: a man who had 10 wives converted to Christianity. What would YOU say must now be done with his wives?
Church decided--no grounds for divorce, he must keep them, provide for them and love them sexually equally. He was not allowed to be an elder being that he is not "husband of one wife".

We are culturally bound. I'm just GLAD I'm not called to be a Kody!

 

[DZoolander]

Not to be mean but, if he's in it just for sex there are more beautiful women out there IMHO.

Gotta admit - I had the same thought.

Course then again (and it might be equally mean to say) - gotta wonder what caliber of women there are running around willing to accept that kind of "bargain".

One thing I've noticed about a lot of these weird alternative-lifestyles - is there ain't a lot of good looking people in 'em. Like I know a guy that's "polyamorous" - meaning he's always got a number of different girlfriends at any given moment and they all are in on the deal/errr drama.

Oofah - talk about a bunch of really unattractive women.

 

[LinkH]

And I may add, the issues of indoctrination that is presenting a concern over the polygamist kids, which isn't occurring, is occurring in full force and without hint of anything different, at the Duggars.

I've seen a few clips about the Druggars, part of it the father leading a devotion, but but I can't comment much on their 'indoctrination' of their children.

'Indoctrination' is a negative word, but Christians certainly are to teach their children the word of God. The Bible tells fathers to raise up children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. It would be immoral and irresponsible to know these important things and not pass them on to our own children.

 

[Verve]

I've seen a few clips about the Druggars, part of it the father leading a devotion, but but I can't comment much on their 'indoctrination' of their children.

'Indoctrination' is a negative word, but Christians certainly are to teach their children the word of God. The Bible tells fathers to raise up children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. It would be immoral and irresponsible to know these important things and not pass them on to our own children.

Exactly, I was reading about the history of Sunday school in the modern church. One of the negatives they were afraid of was that people would stop catechizing their children at home. That if you want to know if their fears were well founded, how many people thing catechizing is something that only Catholics do...

 

[LinkH]

Well I'll tell you something about the daughter of a friend of mine, who has opted for a polygamous marriage to "keep" her wandering husband. Rather than have him secretly have an affair, and possibly leave her for this other woman, they moved her in to live with them. Words fail me at this point. I think it's the most terrible idea ever. If you keep on at that rate - so, perhaps the new s/w meets a guy other than the other gal's husband and is attracted to him, so let's move him in too .. it sounds like a commune, it sounds like 'free love' and hippies, and that part of history just makes me *smh*.

I'm curious. What type of woman is she? Is she just really, really a pushover? Or does she have just really nonconventional ideas when it comes to sexual morality?

I talked with a taxi driver who had two wives and the second was forced on the first. She was a mistress at first, and the first wife accepted the situation that was forced on her. But that wasn't really against their religion (except that the first wife was supposed to consent.) I can't see why a wife in the western world would go for this situation unless she was kind of a free love hippy or allowed herself to be a doormat.