Sister Wives - can we talk bout it?

[DZoolander]

Hmmm.

For all the worry about whether or not the dude is doing it for some hedonistic reason - maybe polygamy is a good thing for a woman who just wants to "get that guy off of me"

 

[mkgal1]

On one of the episodes, the Browns vacationed with another polygamous family. I just found that family's blog:

Our Family | Love Times Three - Our True Story Of A Polygamous Marriage!

 

[Niffer]

:/

 

[Created2Write]

Because of the way the passage emphasizes,"and marries another," The passage doesn't say that putting away the wife is the adultery, but putting away the wife, and marrying another.

and when Jesus says that Moses allwed divorce due to the hardness of their hearts, he also added that it was not that way from the beginning, indicating that God defined marriage by the first or beginning of marriage. Jesus also stated that two are to become one flesh, not the three, or four.

Precisely.

 

[Created2Write]

I think that it can be possible for polygamist relationships to be happy and healthy. But that doesn't mean that God approves of the lifestyle.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

On one of the episodes, the Browns vacationed with another polygamous family. I just found that family's blog:

Our Family | Love Times Three - Our True Story Of A Polygamous Marriage!

That was actually pretty interesting.

 

[iambren]

It's HARD to make a couple in a marriage to work, to talk and compromise over issues, resolve conflicts, do things to not drift apart. The larger the # of people there are in a relationship the greater potential for strife and relational dis-ease.

So these people are suppressing the anguish of their souls or they are settling for a lower form of intimacy to get by. Either seems to me to be an unhealthy way to live. I would rather love deeply one person and live out that oneness than try to legitimize a marriage that is strained.

I can't go as far as to say polygamy is a sin, I don't think scripture is there to go that far. And there may have been times in history where it was the lesser of two evils. But for know, one is fine, thank you.

 

[Hetta]

It's HARD to make a couple in a marriage to work, to talk and compromise over issues, resolve conflicts, do things to not drift apart. The larger the # of people there are in a relationship the greater potential for strife and relational dis-ease.

So these people are suppressing the anguish of their souls or they are settling for a lower form of intimacy to get by. Either seems to me to be an unhealthy way to live. I would rather love deeply one person and live out that oneness than try to legitimize a marriage that is strained.

"A lower form of intimacy" - how can this possibly be beneficial to a marriage, ever, in any circumstances?

 

[Stealth001]

"A lower form of intimacy" - how can this possibly be beneficial to a marriage, ever, in any circumstances?

Eh, before marriage was romanticized it was largely an arranged business agreement between two families.

Many marriages aren't very intimate.

However, I think a deeply loving and intimate relationship is ideal.

 

[Stealth001]

I think that it can be possible for polygamist relationships to be happy and healthy. But that doesn't mean that God approves of the lifestyle.

Marital arrangements approved of and regulated by God in the Bible:

• Monogamy – Marriage consisting of one man and one woman.
• Polygamy – Marriage consisting of one man and more than one woman.
• Concubines – Mistresses recognized within the marriage covenant.
• War Brides – Arranged marriage with female prisoners of war.
• Levirate Marriage – The marrying of a dead brother’s first wife, even if the living brother was already married.
• Servant Marriage – The arrangement of marriage between servants.


​

Essentially marriage was a contract that united families, consolidated wealth, ratified treaties, and promised offspring. It was more of a business deal. However, marriage has been romanticized down through the ages into the animal it is believed to be today. Thus, there was far more room for various forms of marriage in ancient times.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

It's HARD to make a couple in a marriage to work, to talk and compromise over issues, resolve conflicts, do things to not drift apart. The larger the # of people there are in a relationship the greater potential for strife and relational dis-ease.

So these people are suppressing the anguish of their souls or they are settling for a lower form of intimacy to get by. Either seems to me to be an unhealthy way to live. I would rather love deeply one person and live out that oneness than try to legitimize a marriage that is strained.

I can't go as far as to say polygamy is a sin, I don't think scripture is there to go that far. And there may have been times in history where it was the lesser of two evils. But for know, one is fine, thank you.

Intimacy is a funny thing... Different levels of intimacy make folks just as happy. It may not be that anybody is settling for less, they may all be getting all they need, just what they need is less.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Marital arrangements approved of and regulated by God in the Bible:

• Monogamy – Marriage consisting of one man and one woman.
• Polygamy – Marriage consisting of one man and more than one woman.
• Concubines – Mistresses recognized within the marriage covenant.
• War Brides – Arranged marriage with female prisoners of war.
• Levirate Marriage – The marrying of a dead brother’s first wife, even if the living brother was already married.
• Servant Marriage – The arrangement of marriage between servants.


​

Essentially marriage was a contract that united families, consolidated wealth, ratified treaties, and promised offspring. It was more of a business deal. However, marriage has been romanticized down through the ages into the animal it is believed to be today. Thus, there was far more room for various forms of marriage in ancient times.

But you have to admit that there is a huge difference between something being allowed, and something being the ideal. Jesus makes a profound statement that emphasizes the difference when He admits that Moses made an allowance for hardened hearts.

I have absolutely no doubt that it was allowed for a time, and it served a purpose. Just think about the Tower of Babel. God very specifically seperated the people and gave them different languages, to cause disunity between them. This most definitely served a purpose for a time, but the first thing God did when He sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, was to cause them to speak different languages, and He now wanted them to communicate with the world.

Likewise, I believe that He caused disunity between man and woman, because like the people of Babel, they united in rebellion against God. Polygamy, among other things served this purpose. However, when two believers marry, there is no longer a need for dis-unity. Instead, we are called to intimacy.

 

[LinkH]

• Concubines – Mistresses recognized within the marriage covenant.​

​

I've read that concubines were wives who had been slaves formally. Keturah is referred to as both the wife of Abraham and the concubine of Abraham.

I think it is more accurate to call them wives, not mistresses. A man could just have a concubine and no other wife.

 

[dayhiker]

Seems to me that concubine is a term that is broadly defined. I've read a number of definitions and none of them seem to be able to say they are the definitive meaning of the word back in Bible times.

 

[Hetta]

Intimacy is a funny thing... Different levels of intimacy make folks just as happy. It may not be that anybody is settling for less, they may all be getting all they need, just what they need is less.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't know anyone who wants less intimacy in their relationship with their spouse.

 

[DZoolander]

I think what he's suggesting is that "less" is a relative term. Nobody wants "less" than what they're comfortable with...but the level of comfort differs from person to person.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't know anyone who wants less intimacy in their relationship with their spouse.

I mean that some people require less then others. Some need constant intimacy, others would find that level to be suffocating. I'm going to be away from my husband for a week in January, we're literally having panic attacks about it. I can't picture us not together all the time. My parents, on the other hand... My mother is gone 2-3 months a year to stay with my sister, my father is gone one weekend a month and 4 or 5 weeks a year for work, neither is bothered by it. Different people, different relationships, both successful, but both obviously ok with different levels of intimacy.

Though I will say, I see plenty of folks on here say that they desire less attention from spouses, for various reasons. Attentiveness is suffocation to others.

 

[Hetta]

Intimacy doesn't necessary = attentiveness or attention, and you can be away from your spouse and still have a great deal of intimacy.

Intimacy I just looked up and saw it was defined as:

A close, familiar, and usually affectionate or loving personal relationship with another person or group

So being way does not preclude these things, otherwise how would long distance relationships and military marriages ever survive?

 

[AnonUser2013]

Some people get married for convenience over intimacy. Whether its right or wrong, I wont comment but its a fact of life - we dont all want the same things from life. Everyone is different, same goes for marriage dynamics in a traditional marriage. Some women want to lead independent lives of their husbands, they pretty much just 'board together' and get along, but each with their own ambitions and such. But some marriages have the goal that they are working TOGETHER towards the same things.

 

[Avniel]

I don't think that marrying more then one wife would work in any westernized countries certainty none in the US maybe a few countries I'm Europe.

I couldn't imagine dealing with two of what I see a lot of men dealing with.