Is it "fair" for a husband to agree to a monogamous relationship with his first wife, only to change his mind later and add other wives?

[LDremoved]

Life isn’t fair. Truth doesn’t care about fair.

Are you truly concerned about fairness or are you asking something else? Cause fair ain’t reality.

Is it fair for a man to marry a woman and later find out she’s barren when he’s always wanted children? Is it fair for a woman to marry a man expecting him to provide for her only to find he develops a debilitating disease? Of course life isn't fair, it throws curveballs at ya and you roll with the punches.

This selfishness of fairness is honestly disgusting to me. It’s very typical of narcissistic modern western culture and not representative of the real world. It’s childishness on the order of a 2 year old.

I can totally understand the sentiment. But we are talking about the way the creator of the universe designed things to be. He made men to largely be desirous of having multiple women. It’s an atypical man who desires monogamy for the sake of monogamy. It’s a weak or lazy man who desires monogamy simply because it’s more work or creates conflict. So it’s foolishness and a rejection of what everyone knows to be true. Men aren’t monogamous by nature.

Sure, changing the rules in the middle of the game isn’t fair or nice. And if the man has made vows to be monogamous, I 100% insist that he be faithful to fulfill those vows or obtain willing revocation of the vow from his wife.

But the reality is an 18 year old boy/man isn’t going to know everything in scripture. What if he gets married as a worldly unbeliever and later becomes a believer and stops doing the worldly things his wife expected for the rest of their marriage? Does she have a right to be offended at life changing from her selfish will? I say she needs to put her big girl panties on and grow up. This isn’t a romance novel where they live happily ever after. Real life changes the rules in the middle or the game allllll the time.

Our obedience to God trumps someone else’s expectations and selfish desires every time.

Woman was made to be a helper to a man. That is the natural expression and purpose that God has set forth. A helper is not a co-equal partner. The helper helps, not leads.

In any of the trades, there are master (insert trade) and those men have helpers. The helper doesn't have the right to get upset if the master tradesman changes the project and pulls up and goes to work on a different job. The helper just goes and helps.

It all comes down to this simple question. "Are you obedient to God?"
If you say no, then wallow in negativity. If you say you're going to obey God, then be about your business and obey. Philippians 4:8

Life isn’t fair. Truth doesn’t care about fair.

Are you truly concerned about fairness or are you asking something else? Cause fair ain’t reality.

I tried to clear up the word "fair" in my initial question. I would personally use the word betrayal, from what i've read other women share the same sentiment initially as well. I didn't want to speak for others too much therefore settled on the word "fair."

This selfishness of fairness is honestly disgusting to me. It’s very typical of narcissistic modern western culture and not representative of the real world. It’s childishness on the order of a 2 year old.

I can totally understand the sentiment. But we are talking about the way the creator of the universe designed things to be. He made men to largely be desirous of having multiple women. It’s an atypical man who desires monogamy for the sake of monogamy. It’s a weak or lazy man who desires monogamy simply because it’s more work or creates conflict. So it’s foolishness and a rejection of what everyone knows to be true. Men aren’t monogamous by nature.

I agree with you. I've never thought men were designed to be monogamous. However i've met and even dated monogamous men that I wouldn't call "weak or lazy." It also takes a strong man to be monogamous when you weren't designed for it, I can imagine it's quite the struggle for them.

Sure, changing the rules in the middle of the game isn’t fair or nice. And if the man has made vows to be monogamous, I 100% insist that he be faithful to fulfill those vows or obtain willing revocation of the vow from his wife.

That is interesting. So what happens if his wife doesn't agree?

But the reality is an 18 year old boy/man isn’t going to know everything in scripture. What if he gets married as a worldly unbeliever and later becomes a believer and stops doing the worldly things his wife expected for the rest of their marriage? Does she have a right to be offended at life changing from her selfish will? I say she needs to put her big girl panties on and grow up. This isn’t a romance novel where they live happily ever after. Real life changes the rules in the middle or the game allllll the time.

Expecting a wife who married into monogamy to then watch her husband take on multiple new wives and have children with someone other than herself is more than just an "oops look like plans have changed." It was literally not agreed upon when she chose the leader of her family. It's kind of condescending to think the issue would be resolved with a simple "this isn't a fairytale, get over it."

Woman was made to be a helper to a man. That is the natural expression and purpose that God has set forth. A helper is not a co-equal partner. The helper helps, not leads.

In any of the trades, there are master (insert trade) and those men have helpers. The helper doesn't have the right to get upset if the master tradesman changes the project and pulls up and goes to work on a different job. The helper just goes and helps.

I would not compare building a life with someone to making a living. Do you not chose who you work for and what level of servitude you agree to? If my employer told me to murder someone I wouldn't think- ok well things changed but he's the leader, let me get the gun! The Lord blessed us with some level of common sense for a reason.

It all comes down to this simple question. "Are you obedient to God?"
If you say no, then wallow in negativity. If you say you're going to obey God, then be about your business and obey.

It's far easier to obey God than it is to obey man. People often have their own agenda.

I'm just always amazed at how many couples seem to work through the revelation of Polygamy and what resolution they came to. I'm also happy they have.

 

[LDremoved]

Reading about the renewal of vows almost makes me wonder if doing that at a Biblical Families retreat, in order to have appropriate witnesses, would be a good idea, but at the same time it starts seeming like a Billy Graham altar call . . .

I never made such a vow with any of my four serial-monogamy wives, although after the fact my 2nd wife swore she heard me say I would forsake all others. Wasn't going to happen that I would make that promise, and that was true for me even in the desert of my quarter century of turning my back on Yah. Kristin and I eloped at a downtown-Pittsburgh Justice of the Peace, and he gave us a book from which we had our choice of about 40 wedding vows. I skimmed them, and the first one without required monogamy promises was good, so that was what I chose. (By the way, in my case, I could counter with the just-as-emotionally-laden question, "Is it 'fair' for a woman to agree to her man refraining from making a monogamy pledge, only to change her mind later and demand that he never add other wives?)

Now to the serious response to your question, @LovesDogs: the concept of fairness is almost always a red herring. Life just isn't fair, and attempts to make it be so are generally foolhardy, not to mention having the tendency to inspire the type of boredom communism brings to human relationships. A better question is, does what your suggesting lack integrity? That focuses the mind on the ethics of the situation. When the question you're posing is asked -- and it has been posed in most all of our lives if we desire plural marriage -- it is almost always posed from a point of view that puts on horse blinders in order to only take into account one very specific and emotionally-fraught dynamic. Two major things that tend to get ignored but that are in fact inseparable are:

1. Sometimes people actually grow in their faith, their knowledge of Scripture and their willingness to implement what they learn in a way that couldn't have been predicted -- especially when we consider such vows being made by young-and-dumbsters. Should one be shackled by a previous state of ignorance once one becomes enlightened?
2. I would contend that, over the course of the vast majority of modern marriages, women break more of the vows than do men. Here's something very close to what Kristin and I vowed on May 7, 1987 (it included an optional 'forsaking all others' phrase that I just didn't say -- but Kristin did, even though, at that time I had thought I shouldn't require her to do so): "I take you to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, and I promise to love and cherish you until death do us part."

In our modern times, 2/3 of divorces are filed by women, and their number one reason for doing so is belief that they can do better: better man making better money. That right there indicates that women are typically violating the vows about for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, and promising to love and cherish until death, but I contend that the abdication of vows on their part starts way before the divorce.

The other manner in which women very often violate their vows isn't always clearly stated in the vows but falls under the "have and to hold from this day forward" clause: one of my friends here repeated the old but true saw about how the best way to decrease a woman's libido is to marry her. It's the stuff of movies, legends and a great deal of fodder for comics: much more often than men attempt to create plural families, women decrease the due benevolence they either stated, implied or led their future husbands to believe they could count on after the rings were exchanged. Gee, do we think that in some cases doing so might even lead to men being inspired to want to avail themselves of the biblically-legitimate option of having multiple wives?

Even if a man made a forsaking-all-others vow at the beginning of the marriage, if he did so in scriptural ignorance and is then enlightened about biblical truth in the matter, why is he so adamantly required by our feminized culture to permanently respect his original intention when very few people contend that women are permanently required to adhere to the rest of the vows?

Even if a man made a forsaking-all-others vow at the beginning of the marriage, if he did so in scriptural ignorance and is then enlightened about biblical truth in the matter, why is he so adamantly required by our feminized culture to permanently respect his original intention when very few people contend that women are permanently required to adhere to the rest of the vows?

That is a good question! I never fail to be disgusted by how often divorce is celebrated if a woman files for it. However if a man files for divorce, in the eyes of everyone the women and children are the victims. Why doesn't the same apply to women?

 

[LDremoved]

Sadly when my brother in law fell and broke his back it was the beginning of the end for his marriage. His wife didn't immediately want a divorce, but 8 years later filed. He said she treated him different after the accident. Wouldn't let him touch her. Wouldn't let him sleep in their bed. He has had a rough road and only now 18 months after she filed has he been able to see his children again.

Only a woman who fears YHWH will stick with her vows when her feelings lead her a different way.

And you are very right that keeping themselves from their husbands is the usual first step toward leaving.

Or songs!! I heard this one for the first time this year.

Most women don't want to accept the truth. Yah gave men the authority to divorce, or take another wife.
If he does take another, her unfair and selfish (and stupid!) denial of him loses much of it's sting. She is then the one doing without....perhaps longer then she was willing if pride and stubbornness get started.

It's just a fool's game to start with......but one many play.


Believe me, the way your life and husband can change without polygyny can leave the woman feeling like "I didn't sign up for this!"

This is why many of those lines are in traditional vows. You cannot make those vows and later say that life's changes weren't part of the deal. Not honestly at any rate. Those vows should prevent divorce by causing each to weather the storm for conscience sake. Too many don't live honestly though and have a seared conscience.


We were looking at a bunch of canning.....then the sheep got into the garden. Canning postponed until see how well the plants recover.

Sadly when my brother in law fell and broke his back it was the beginning of the end for his marriage. His wife didn't immediately want a divorce, but 8 years later filed. He said she treated him different after the accident. Wouldn't let him touch her. Wouldn't let him sleep in their bed. He has had a rough road and only now 18 months after she filed has he been able to see his children again.

I can't believe people actually do this to one another.

Believe me, the way your life and husband can change without polygyny can leave the woman feeling like "I didn't sign up for this!"

I'm constantly amazed at the hurdles people work through, not only in marriage but everyday relationships with one another as well. I enjoy reading the stories of other people on here for this very reason.

 

[MeganC]

And if the man has made vows to be monogamous, I 100% insist that he be faithful to fulfill those vows or obtain willing revocation of the vow from his wife.

I agree.

A deal is a deal. If monogamy was the deal then both sides need to agree on any changes.

 

[LDremoved]

I agree.

A deal is a deal. If monogamy was the deal then both sides need to agree on any changes.

I found that quite interesting! I expected more of a suck it up buttercup response from some of the men on here (no offense to ya'll lol) way to prove me wrong.

 

[FollowingHim]

I'm honestly amazed at how many couples seem to work through it.

That seriously just comes back to commitment. Were you REALLY committed to stick with this person until death, whatever life throws at you, and however they change as they age? If the answer is yes, you'll absolutely work through it. If you can't work through it then you have simply discovered that for at least one of you the answer was actually always no. Sadly, we find some people aren't really committed when life gets truly difficult, and are led by emotion instead. But any truly committed couple can work through this and even greater shocks. Commitment is a decision.

 

[NickF]

First off, let me be totally clear, my position here is not gentle or nice, or at all how I would respond to my wife asking these questions. I'm just trying to shoot straight and tell the truth without sugar coating. That can come across as mean spirited or harsh, so please understand I'm not trying to be an arse. This is a serious question that deserves a serious answer that is grounded and rooted in truth over emotion.

If you both agreed to anything, but subsequently your head discovered that the thing you agreed to was literally a doctrine of devils and a sinful goddess worship. If he was a Godly man who desired to honor and obey the LORD, then he would be required to recant that prior belief, nullifying the previously held agreement. That is the cut and dried unvarnished truth of the matter. Hurt feelings bear no true effect on the truth of God's Word. Period.

Obedience to God is not a "bitter pill". It can be hard, but it is always a blessing to have the opportunity to obey the Lord of your life. That is unless He isn't your Lord. That's what this all comes down to... What does this fictional woman love most? The world and her fantasies for how her life should be? Or does she love God and desire above all else to follow and obey Him?

I tried to clear up the word "fair" in my initial question. I would personally use the word betrayal, from what i've read other women share the same sentiment initially as well. I didn't want to speak for others too much therefore settled on the word "fair."

I can understand how it would feel like a betrayal. But again, the issue is obedience to God and rejecting a fantasy.

I agree with you. I've never thought men were designed to be monogamous. However i've met and even dated monogamous men that I wouldn't call "weak or lazy." It also takes a strong man to be monogamous when you weren't designed for it, I can imagine it's quite the struggle for them.

I can totally get behind the fact that some men are not mentally capable or desirous of anything more than celibacy, or monogamy. But I was generalizing the nature of a man.

That is interesting. So what happens if his wife doesn't agree?

If a man makes a vow, he ought to uphold it even if it was made foolishly. Honor and obedience to God dictate this. The wife who doesn't agree to release her husband from a foolish vow made out of ignorance is holding her fantasies and selfish will above the clear will of God. She is choosing to keep power over her husband in a matter that will certainly drive a wedge between the two of them. A foolish woman tears her own house down.

Expecting a wife who married into monogamy to then watch her husband take on multiple new wives and have children with someone other than herself is more than just an "oops look like plans have changed." It was literally not agreed upon when she chose the leader of her family. It's kind of condescending to think the issue would be resolved with a simple "this isn't a fairytale, get over it."

You're right, this is a serious matter, and not an "oops, looks like plans have changed". It's a serious matter of a doctrine of man that was foisted upon people with lies and deception. A lie designed to create weak families and weak men. A lie designed to pervert the overall message of the whole of scripture. It's absurd to expect a man to continue in disobedience to God's Word simply because he accidentally did something stupid once. It's foolish to hold onto the fairytale and tear your own house down because you want something that isn't in alignment with scripture.

It's like this, the wife and husband agreed before marriage to both get pregnant and bear children because they thought it was possible for a man to get pregnant. They get saved and learn that's not reality, but she holds onto the belief she is entitled to "feel betrayed" and "hurt" that the man wants to follow God and not act like he can get pregnant anymore. It's foolish and childish.

I would not compare building a life with someone to making a living. Do you not chose who you work for and what level of servitude you agree to? If my employer told me to murder someone I wouldn't think- ok well things changed but he's the leader, let me get the gun!

If you don't want to marry and be conformed to scriptural definitions and responsibilities then that's fine with me. I have no problems with that. Have at it!
I'll not dignify the straw man argument with a response.

The Lord blessed us with some level of common sense for a reason.

We ought to have enough common sense to take our notions and hold them up to the light of Scripture to see if our common sense is in alignment with God's dictates, or simply more feminism in colorful garb.

It's far easier to obey God than it is to obey man. People often have their own agenda.

People are often rebellious towards both.

I'm just always amazed at how many couples seem to work through the revelation of Polygamy and what resolution they came to. I'm also happy they have.

HalleluYah! Praise God for women and men willing to obey God and honor Him through their obedience towards Him, despite their feelings on the matter. May we all submit ourselves to His will, and His definition of how a man and woman ought to conduct themselves in marriage.

 

[FollowingHim]

If a man makes a vow, he ought to uphold it even if it was made foolishly. Honor and obedience to God dictate this. The wife who doesn't agree to release her husband from a foolish vow made out of ignorance is holding her fantasies and selfish will above the clear will of God.

This commitment to vows needs to be tempered by reality in some circumstances. If a man has an affair, he is required to take his mistress as a wife. He might have a pre-existing monogamous vow to his first wife, but he has already broken it the day he began the affair. The first wife can no longer expect to go back to that promised state, it is now gone and overruled by a greater commitment.

He shouldn't have had the affair in the first place, but that ship has sailed.

 

[MeganC]

This commitment to vows needs to be tempered by reality in some circumstances. If a man has an affair, he is required to take his mistress as a wife. He might have a pre-existing monogamous vow to his first wife, but he has already broken it the day he began the affair. The first wife can no longer expect to go back to that promised state, it is now gone and overruled by a greater commitment.

He shouldn't have had the affair in the first place, but that ship has sailed.

I also agree with this. And I have seen this happen.

 

[NickF]

Now, with all that out of the way. Your questions:

1. Is it "Fair or a betrayal" for a husband to agree to a monogamous relationship with his first wife, only to change his mind later and add other wives?
Is it fair or a betrayal for a king or a lord to change his mind on taxes, or how he wants his castle to be arranged? Is it fair for a president of a company to add employees or to fire someone? Is it a betrayal to change something later given new information? Is it fair for a husband to obey God even if the wife's feelings are wounded?

2. What if your leader/husband agreed to monogamy at the beginning then changed his mind later on in the marriage?
So what? What if he agreed to no sex at the beginning and then later changed his mind? What if he agreed to never eat peanut butter but later changed his mind? What if he agreed to only live in Columbia but later decided to take his family to Brasil?

This fairness/betrayal mindset is feminism embodied. I know you keep rejecting that assertion but there is a deep underlayment of a rejection of the Headship and Mastery of the Lord God, and the authority of a man over his wife. The head has the authority and right to change the course of the family at any time. To move the family to a different city. To live in a tent, to eat only meat, to live off grid, or to live in a skyscraper in Manhattan. The feminist says, "But I didn't agree to that and you have to stay locked into MY desires for the future of the family"

The Godly woman says to both God and her husband: "Not my will but yours be done"

Matthew 26:39
39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

The bride of Christ when faced with execution for refusal to deny Christ says "Not my will but yours be done Lord".
When my Lord commands me and I know it will bring hardship and pain, I am to say "Not my will, but yours God".
When a wife learns that polygny is Godly and acceptable, and that her head decides it is the best thing for his family, she has the choice to hold her own desires highest, or submit to God through submitting to her husband and say "Not my will, but yours be done husband".

And let me be clear here. In no way am I saying or implying a man should be a tyrant, walk all over his wife, force something like this on her, dominate to the point of intentionally harming or hurting his woman. God Forbid! We are to lay our lives down, to live with our wives in an understanding way with knowledge. To cherish and love our wife. To treat her as a cherished treasure, an honored vessel, an easily broken and beautiful crystal champagne flute that deserves care and honor.

A man should not force something like this on his wife to the point of breaking her or destroying his marriage and family. That would be utter foolishness. In no way am I implying a man should pursue poly to the destruction of his marriage to his first wife.

A man has a sacred duty to honor God in the way he treats his wife. We are to love our wives as Christ loved the church.
Likewise, a woman has a sacred duty to honor God in the way she submits her will to that of her man. She is to honor and obey her husband as we are to honor and obey Jesus.

We would dishonor Jesus if we stomped our feet and said "But I don't want to tell those people about the Gospel, I didn't know that was required of me when I first came to you God! This is embarrassing and hard, what if I am rejected and mocked? This isn't what I signed up for! I might get fired from my job, or lose friends or family if I obey your word on this matter God!"

We don't get the freedom to feel betrayed if God requires something of us that we didn't think we signed up for. We have the honor of bringing him glory and honor through our joyful acceptance and obedience.

 

[NickF]

This commitment to vows needs to be tempered by reality in some circumstances. If a man has an affair, he is required to take his mistress as a wife. He might have a pre-existing monogamous vow to his first wife, but he has already broken it the day he began the affair. The first wife can no longer expect to go back to that promised state, it is now gone and overruled by a greater commitment.

He shouldn't have had the affair in the first place, but that ship has sailed.

Absolutely 100% agree. The commitment to vows only exists as long as the vow exists. If he breaks that vow, he has sinned and he can either make a new vow or simply deal with the fallout.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Were you REALLY committed to stick with this person until death, whatever life throws at you, and however they change as they age? If the answer is yes, you'll absolutely work through it. If you can't work through it then you have simply discovered that for at least one of you the answer was actually always no.

My folks used to sing a song called Always when our family did musical performances. When they divorced after 36 years I remember distinctly feeling those words they sang and those vows they made were not true. The Bible says that love is not self seeking....and never fails. That left me feeling that if they didn't love each other anymore....they never really did. I guess the real challenge lies in communication....and the best advice is to treat your partner like the Bible instructs you to!
You really can't apply the golden rule to a marriage between a man and a woman. Their needs are very different. You have to do what the other needs....even if that is not natural to your thinking.

If a man makes a vow, he ought to uphold it even if it was made foolishly. Honor and obedience to God dictate this. The wife who doesn't agree to release her husband from a foolish vow made out of ignorance is holding her fantasies and selfish will above the clear will of God. She is choosing to keep power over her husband in a matter that will certainly drive a wedge between the two of them. A foolish woman tears her own house down.

If the man made a mistake he would like to correct. She actually prevents him from repenting by holding him to what He ignorantly said. While she might accuse him of being unloving, her own actions are even worse and would be like listening to a so called friend who is leading you into opposition to your authority.
Technically, God does expect vows to be kept....but a man forced to abide by a vow he regrets may in his heart wonder what he might be missing or if that hypothetical second wife that he cannot have is doing without a husband and family.

But all that logic aside, even men want their emotions understood and heart wounds acknowledged. To make light of how hard this could be is to add yet another wound to a hurting heart.

I have long been outspoken about this matter because the truth sets us free. I wish more Christians acted like they believe that....and that more people were Christian.

Let YHWH be true!

 

[Mark C]

Never does it say- if your husband later decides to marry other women.

That's why you need to write your own vows...

 

[LDremoved]

First off, let me be totally clear, my position here is not gentle or nice, or at all how I would respond to my wife asking these questions. I'm just trying to shoot straight and tell the truth without sugar coating. That can come across as mean spirited or harsh, so please understand I'm not trying to be an arse. This is a serious question that deserves a serious answer that is grounded and rooted in truth over emotion.

If you both agreed to anything, but subsequently your head discovered that the thing you agreed to was literally a doctrine of devils and a sinful goddess worship. If he was a Godly man who desired to honor and obey the LORD, then he would be required to recant that prior belief, nullifying the previously held agreement. That is the cut and dried unvarnished truth of the matter. Hurt feelings bear no true effect on the truth of God's Word. Period.

Obedience to God is not a "bitter pill". It can be hard, but it is always a blessing to have the opportunity to obey the Lord of your life. That is unless He isn't your Lord. That's what this all comes down to... What does this fictional woman love most? The world and her fantasies for how her life should be? Or does she love God and desire above all else to follow and obey Him?


I can understand how it would feel like a betrayal. But again, the issue is obedience to God and rejecting a fantasy.

I can totally get behind the fact that some men are not mentally capable or desirous of anything more than celibacy, or monogamy. But I was generalizing the nature of a man.

If a man makes a vow, he ought to uphold it even if it was made foolishly. Honor and obedience to God dictate this. The wife who doesn't agree to release her husband from a foolish vow made out of ignorance is holding her fantasies and selfish will above the clear will of God. She is choosing to keep power over her husband in a matter that will certainly drive a wedge between the two of them. A foolish woman tears her own house down.


You're right, this is a serious matter, and not an "oops, looks like plans have changed". It's a serious matter of a doctrine of man that was foisted upon people with lies and deception. A lie designed to create weak families and weak men. A lie designed to pervert the overall message of the whole of scripture. It's absurd to expect a man to continue in disobedience to God's Word simply because he accidentally did something stupid once. It's foolish to hold onto the fairytale and tear your own house down because you want something that isn't in alignment with scripture.

It's like this, the wife and husband agreed before marriage to both get pregnant and bear children because they thought it was possible for a man to get pregnant. They get saved and learn that's not reality, but she holds onto the belief she is entitled to "feel betrayed" and "hurt" that the man wants to follow God and not act like he can get pregnant anymore. It's foolish and childish.


If you don't want to marry and be conformed to scriptural definitions and responsibilities then that's fine with me. I have no problems with that. Have at it!
I'll not dignify the straw man argument with a response.

We ought to have enough common sense to take our notions and hold them up to the light of Scripture to see if our common sense is in alignment with God's dictates, or simply more feminism in colorful garb.


People are often rebellious towards both.

HalleluYah! Praise God for women and men willing to obey God and honor Him through their obedience towards Him, despite their feelings on the matter. May we all submit ourselves to His will, and His definition of how a man and woman ought to conduct themselves in marriage.

I'm just trying to shoot straight and tell the truth without sugar coating.

Sassy is the word that comes to mind.

That is the cut and dried unvarnished truth of the matter. Hurt feelings bear no true effect on the truth of God's Word. Period.

They definitely don't but they are useful in helping some people understand God's word.

It's like this, the wife and husband agreed before marriage to both get pregnant and bear children because they thought it was possible for a man to get pregnant. They get saved and learn that's not reality, but she holds onto the belief she is entitled to "feel betrayed" and "hurt" that the man wants to follow God and not act like he can get pregnant anymore. It's foolish and childish.

I think that would qualify under the sickness and health vows. It's not the same as bringing other wives into the home.

If you don't want to marry and be conformed to scriptural definitions and responsibilities then that's fine with me. I have no problems with that. Have at it!

I'll not dignify the straw man argument with a response

Unclear how you got any of that out of my response? I literally used the same analogy you did with a different perspective.

HalleluYah! Praise God for women and men willing to obey God and honor Him through their obedience towards Him, despite their feelings on the matter. May we all submit ourselves to His will, and His definition of how a man and woman ought to conduct themselves in marriage.

There's nothing wrong with admiring others devotion to God's word or finding inspiration in it.

 

[LDremoved]

That's why you need to write your own vows...

Yes but many didn't have that opportunity and later discovered their calling to Polygamy. Made me curious how they felt about taking those initial vows in ignorance and then changing them later on. I just enjoy hearing other's stories and solutions.

 

[MemeFan]

Fundamental rule of marketing is explaining "What is it for me?"

No wonder women have so much problem with polygyny when first thought in their heads is nothing.

That's way we have this conversation. No one has problem when seller replaces something obviously better for same price than what contract says. Lease WV, get Audi instead.

 

[LDremoved]

Fundamental rule of marketing is explaining "What is it for me?"

No wonder women have so much problem with polygyny when first thought in their heads is nothing.

That's way we have this conversation. No one has problem when seller replaces something obviously better for same price than what contract says. Lease WV, get Audi instead.

I wish I understood what you're trying to say better.

 

[MemeFan]

I wish I understood what you're trying to say better.

What average woman thinks when hears about polygyny for herself? Life will get worse. This creates sense of betrayal.

 

[LDremoved]

What average woman thinks when hears about polygyny for herself? Life will get worse. This creates sense of betrayal.

I think that's a very sensible and ok emotion to feel right away. Simply because it will effect your life, drastically. I'm sure it takes a lot of emotional growth on both the wife and husbands part to get to a place of acceptance.

Also cars are not people. We didn't take vows to our cars, they don't have emotions or commitments (contrary to what some of us think)

Of course no one blinks an eye at someone upgrading a car. I'd be concerned if my husband wanted Polygamy simply because he wanted an upgrade to begin with.

 

[Keith Martin]

Expecting a wife who married into monogamy to then watch her husband take on multiple new wives and have children with someone other than herself is more than just an "oops look like plans have changed." It was literally not agreed upon when she chose the leader of her family. It's kind of condescending to think the issue would be resolved with a simple "this isn't a fairytale, get over it."

The vast majority of patriarchal men would agree with you about this. True leadership needs to be present to provide the proper atmosphere for introducing changing understanding of Scripture re: polygyny. Introducing an intention to seek plural marriage would be a foolish starting point for headship.

In that sense, though, what you've written in that paragraph is a bit of a red herring, because you're arguing against something only a fool would promote.