The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Puddy's Propositions: #5 Polygamy?/ Sure, Why Not!

“I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the Word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.”
Martin Luther - (I am not sure he really supported plural marriage. Still interesting quote)

“Polygamy was practiced without criticism throughout the Old Testament. It was legal and moral, and was clearly within the blessings of God. Indeed, the practice of marrying the wife of a deceased brother in order to ensure the family line continued (Deuteronomy 25:5-6), and marrying an unengaged damsel with whom a man had had sex (Exodus 21:16) would have actually required such a man to have more than one wife, if he was already married.”
Clyde L. Pilkington, Jr.

We see that:

Abraham had 3 wives
Jacob’s 4 wives birthed the twelve tribes of Israel
Moses had a Midianite and Ethiopian wife.
Gideon had many wives (Judges 8.30)
David was a lucky man (2 Samuel 12.8)
Solomon had 700 Wives. Some of these wives were godless foreigners. (that was wrong)
God was married to Jerusalem and Samaria (Ez. 23: 2-4, Jer. 3:6-10, 31:31-32)

“In a plural marriage no one is left alone to raise their children as a single parent because if the husband isn’t around, the wives still have each other to help raise and support their children, both financially and emotionally.”
Stephanie Elie
BizzieLiving.com

“Keep in mind that for every 100 single women of marriageable age in the United States there are fewer than 70 single men, and as we get older the numbers spread further apart. That means statistically if marriage is still considered only a monogamous relationship, there will always be more women than men which probably means there will always be infidelity in what we are calling monogamous relationships.”
Stephanie Elie
BizzieLiving.com

And if all the husbands out there start explaining to their wives that they intend to bring a new wife into the relationship because scripture doesn’t forbid it, then there will be even fewer men to go around . . . .

I actually agree with you. When a couple get married, and it is understood that she will be his only wife, then it would be wrong for the man to have multiple wives. In our culture, it is almost always understood to be the case.
I am at a loss to know why a man would want more than one Wife, and especially why a Women would want to share her Husband with other Wives.

Now here’s a can of worms :laughing:

But seriously, it’s an interesting topic. I’ve discussed this with a couple of my friends, and my tentative view at this point is that perhaps multiple wives (or in some cases, multiple husbands) may work for a rare few, but definitely not for the vast majority of people. I only say this because there are a few cases where it does in fact seem to work, which, though that may seem counter-intuitive, leaves the door open, at least in my opinion, though I myself wouldn’t walk through that door, and my wife to be Kaylyn wouldn’t either.

On the related topic of open relationships, I think in general it’s a very bad idea.
At least in a polygamous marriage there is a kind of commitment to one another, which is lacking in merely polyamorous relationships. But then again, there is the reality that open relationships do seem to work for a rare few, which I don’t really know what to make of.

I guess my basic attitude about all multiple partner relationships is this: as long as it’s all mutually agreed upon and consensual on all fronts then I think it’s really nobody’s business, regardless of how unnatural or unhealthy it may seem to us, and if God has a problem with it, then that’s between them and God, and really isn’t for any of us to judge. Or at least that’s how I feel about it. I could be wrong. :wink:

Well, that’s my two cents on it. :wink:

Matt

Atta girl Cindy – :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Puddy these topics are wonderful :smiley: - you don’t half pick 'em :unamused:

IMHO Just because polygamy happens somewhere in the Bible does not mean to say it’s a good idea now. Concubinage is also allowed in the Old Testament – but as far as I can see few of us would want to revive this institution. Although there is an old rhyme –

Higamus hogamus woman is monogomus
Hogamus higamus man is polygamous

:confused:

I’m sure that polygamy is a social arrangement that is necessary in some social circumstances – for example in the time of the Patriarchs of Israel there was a high death rate among men (because of war) and lots of re widows (in a time before any sort of organised state existed to look after them). So yes – in these circumstances polygamy makes some sense. And I guess then there was also a more urgent prerogative for men to breed as much as possible in a time when most children died in infancy.

We don’t live in such times. I think something that we expect as part of the moral underpinning of marriage today is that it should lead to the flourishing of partners and their growth into mature personhood through mutuality – that’s the way the Christian ethic of marriage has developed (and all to the good in my view).

The thing about polygamy is that it’s not really conducive to this sort of growth in love and maturity – or at least it’s not the best context for this. IF I think it through I can say that structurally the arrangement will tend to infantilise the women and give too much power to the man (who may actually be the moral and spiritual inferior of his wives). It’s going to lead to a tendency for jealous rivalries between wives (and a temptation for an immature man to really get off on these rivalries).

I also understand that for some reason child abuse is more common in polygamous marriage – I’ve no idea way and can only speculate that this has something to do with children like wives not being accorded full status as autonomous human beings in the eyes of an all powerful polygamous husband. So I’m not a great fan of polygamy

I not that there is an arrangement called polyandry where women take many husbands in a given society – this is very rare but is practise somewhere amongst the tribes of the Himalayas (and there is a specific social reason for this - which I’ve forgotten). Nice piece of useless information for the day! :laughing:

Blessings

Dick :slight_smile:

How do you guys see Paul’s words about an overseer being “the husband of one wife” ITim.3:2? Or is this only about Overseers ?

URPilgrim,

IMO, this is analogous to Paul’s insistence that slaves are the equal of the freemen/women. In society of his day, slavery was institutionalized and an (apparently) inescapable fact of life. Nevertheless, we have largely outgrown this primitive and abusive practice. At any rate, it is at least illegal in most of the world.Yet it was practiced and neither forbidden nor condemned in both the old and new covenants. Does this mean it isn’t wrong? Most of us would loudly affirm, “God forbid!” (as Paul might say.) Paul, in fact, while he advises slaves to submit to and obey their masters as they obey the Lord, also urges them to obtain their freedom if possible. And yes, he also says that an overseer must be the husband of one wife.

It seems to me that the gradual downgrade of the approvability of the practice of slavery over the millenia is analogous to the downgrade of the approvability of polygamy over the millenia. The kings of Israel are commanded not to multiply wives to themselves (however much the two greatest of Israel’s kings ignored that particular bit of advice). As far as one can see from the gospel accounts, slavery was apparently not much practiced in Jewish society in Jesus’ day (though I don’t know whether it was still done, and it’s just never mentioned). I’m guessing that polygamy wasn’t much practiced either.

It’s my understanding (and maybe my sources were wrong, but . . .) that when the priests and Pharisees asked Jesus whether it was acceptable for a man to divorce his wife for “any cause,” or only “on grounds of sexual immorality” that this referred to an ongoing argument of law amongst them. They were wealthy men, many of them, and apparently it was popular at the time for a wealthy priest to put away his wife “for any cause,” which essentially left her tied to him and unable to remarry, yet without financial support from him. It also negated the husband’s obligation to return her (usually very substantial) dowry to her. The husband would then legally marry a younger, more beautiful, usually foreign wife. (I know this is against scripture, but culturally, this wasn’t uncommon, according to the commentary I read – fwiw.) So here was this woman bereft of shelter and food and clothing and yet forbidden to remarry, basically forced to commit adultery in order to come under the protection and provision of a husband.

And the husband, also somewhat disapproved of by his peers (I expect) for having put away his wife via the controversial “any cause” law, so that he could have a newer more exciting woman in his bed. Having two wives at the same time must have been even less approved – otherwise why wouldn’t he have skipped the non-divorce divorce and simply added a new “sister wife” to the family compound? Just my speculation, and anyone (Sherman?) who would like to correct me is invited and welcome. I’d be interested to know whether I’m on base or not. :wink:

At any rate, yes – I’m speculating that it must have been accepted that some members of the church would have more than one wife. If they came to the church in that condition, it would hardly be kind to divorce one of the wives in order to comply with the rules of the church. Yet such a man could never be in a leadership position. So it was frowned upon, and I speculate that this would tend to discourage currently monogamous (or not yet married) men to add another pretty girl to the harem.

Like I said, this is just my speculation and musings and I’d be interested to know what anyone thinks of them. :slight_smile:

Blessings, Cindy

Hi Cindy and Puddy -

I’ve had a quick peep at some historicla articles - and here’s the gist (stuff on NT comes at the end of my ruminations)

There may well have been a mix of monogamous and polygamous practices in the early Church – with some Jewish Christians practicing polygamy (although the practice was becoming obsolete even in Rabbinic Judaism) and most Gentile Christians practicing monogamy (enshrined in Roman law as the norm). From the second century onwards the majority of the church Fathers came out actively against polygamy as sinful however.

During the Reformation Calvin came out against polygamy but Luther could see nothing wrong with it. Polygamy was practiced by some Lutherans and some radicals – like the Anabaptists of Munster who enforced polygamy which punishing adultery and fornication with excessive cruelty in women (perhaps the scandal of Munster put the lid no Reformation experimentation).

The issue of polygamy came up again during the nineteenth century among Anglican missionaries in Africa like Bishop Colenso who – rightly in my view – were concerned with the pastoral issue of enforcing monogamy; surely it could not be right to require an African convert to send away all wives but one and no longer support them? (this tallies with your hunch about New Testmanet times Cindy - and there may well be something in what you say)

Polygamy is a hot issue in some fundamentalist sects today – ‘mainstream’ Christian and Mormon. From what I know of these sects they are degrading to the humanity f women who are viewed as little more than breeding machines.
Regarding arguments for and against polygamy from the New Testament there is a well sourced article at Wikipedia -

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_i … rspectives

and it has the following things to say

***One Flesh

Although the New Testament is largely silent on the issue, some point to Jesus’ repetition of the earlier scriptures, noting that a man and a wife “shall become one flesh”. However, some look to Paul’s writings to the Corinthians: “Do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, ‘The two will become one flesh.’” They claim this indicates that the term refers to a physical, rather than spiritual, union.

Polygamists do not dispute that in marriage “two will become one.” They only disagree with the idea that you can do this with only one person. In the Bible marriages to additional spouses are considered valid. If this is not true then there is a theological problem with the lineage of Jesus Christ which does not always go through the first wife.
[edit] Cleave to Wife (not Wives)

Most Christian theologians argue that in Matthew 19:3-9 and in keeping with Genesis 2:24 Jesus Christ explicitly states a man should have only one wife:

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"

Polygamists argue that in this passage Jesus is answering a question about divorce and is saying nothing about polygamy. A man, in their view, can be of “one flesh” with multiple wives.

Husband of one wife

Many critics of polygamy also point to the epistles of Paul that state that church officials should be respectable, above reproach, and the husband of a single wife. Hermeneutically, the Greek phrase mias gunaikos andra, is an unusual Greek construction, and capable of being translated in three possible ways: 1) “one wife man,” (prohibiting plural marriage) or 2) “a wife man” (requiring elders to be married) or 3) “first wife man” (prohibiting divorcees from ordination).Some claim that if these verses refer directly to polygamy (definition 1 above) it supports the acceptance of polygamy because if polygamy were outlawed there would be no need to have laws prohibiting leaders from being polygamists. One would only need a law prohibiting polygamy by leaders if polygamy was accepted among lay persons. (Definition possibilities 2 and 3 above are, of course, already polygamy friendly.)

In the time around Jesus’ birth, polygamy (also called bigamy or digamy in texts) was understood to have had several spouses consecutively, as evidenced for example by Tertullian’s work De Exhortatione Castitatis (chapt. VII.).[57] Saint Paul answered this problem by allowing widows to remarry (1 Cor. vii. 39. and 1 Tim 5:11–16). Paul says that only one man women elder than 60 years can make the list of Christian widows, but that younger widows should remarry to hinder sin. By demanding that leaders of the Church be a one woman man, Saint Paul excluded remarried widowers from having influence. This was a more strict understanding of monogamy than what the Roman laws codified, and it was new and unusual that the demand was made on men. “One man women” or mias andros güne was the name for widows who had only had one husband in their lives. This expression is the mirror of mias günaikos andra and highlights how that expression is to be understood.

On this subject William Luck writes:

Thus it is most probable that the qualifications list sees the “husband of one wife” as a condemnation of porneia—sex with an unmarried woman, though doubtless the clause also prohibited adultery—sex with someone else’s wife, polygyny was out of sight and mind. The issue is not the number of covenant relations the man had—he would only have had one at a time, since the empire was monogamous—but his womanizing. This of course does not eliminate the grievous sin of marrying and divorcing in order to have sexual relations with a number of women. But that too is not the issue in polygamy***

A recipe for social harmony. For every fat, rich man who has 10 wives, nine ordinary men must have none. The rich man knows this and exults in his power, until one of the nine stabs him to death in his sleep. :open_mouth:

In OT times, wars were so common the gender ratio was skewed. Polygamy was an necessary evil. It really was “Populate or Perish.”

:laughing: Allen! Unless one of the ladies beats them to it. :confused:

I love this, Cindy. :laughing:

I just want to know how men will feel when their wives bring home more men.

Seriously, though. Is it that overseers must have only one wife or at least one wife. I would think that having at least one wife would make any man a better and more insightful overseer for the general population, among whom many would be married.

Certainly some good discussion and informative articles. In my introduction I did give a few reasons why polygamy can be beneficial to society, but I am no expert.

Really, whether the practice is good for society or not, there is a reasonable chance it will become legal. I could see it happening in Canada. It is said to be now legal in Saskatchewan.

The real question for me isn’t what the secular world does, but if it does become accepted by secular society, what will be the response by believers.

Can a Godly man make a good husband to multiple wives, and be a loving father?
Instead of a fat, rich man, what if he is kind, gentle, and Godly?

I think that if there is no clear biblical mandate against polygamy, then the church should accept those who practice it and encourage them to have loving and godly relationships within their families.

Hi All -

I think it might be useful to imagine what polygamous marriage might entail for all parties -

Here’s a report on one by Dawn Porter, a journalist with the UK Daily Mail…

*For decades, the domestic lives of American polygamists have remained secretive and closely guarded. But for a new TV documentary, presenter Dawn Porter was given access to two polygamous families, who both sought to present rose-tinted images of harmonious, contented communities. But when she scratched beneath the surface, what she found was a very different picture - of resentment, jealousy and bitterness…
Documentary-maker Dawn Porter discovered jealousy and seething resentments when she stayed with two polygamous families
At first glance, it is a scene of utterly normal domestic chaos. There’s washing to be done, the children are running around outside, and Dad has come home from work in a terrible mood.
Martha has her arm around her husband Moroni and is clucking like an indulgent hen as she tries to coax him into a better temper. Buxom, amiable and in her mid-30s, she is every inch the average housewife and mother.
At least she is until I glance to Moroni’s right, and see the second woman who is trying to placate him. Temple - in her late 20s - is Moroni’s ‘other’ wife.
These two women share their lives, their home and their beds with the same husband, bound together by their polygamist marriages.
And, incredibly, the reason for Moroni’s mood - he is sitting slumped, head in hands - is that he has been dumped by the woman he hoped would become wife number three.
He moans ‘I’ve been heartbroken more times than I care to admit’, which sparks a fresh wave of sympathetic noises from both his wives.
Not only are they happy to share this paunchy man, but they are also happy to help him pick a third wife. Finally, their coaxing seems to ease Moroni’s mood.
‘We’ll find someone who will fit in perfectly,’ Martha purrs soothingly, as if her husband were about to select a new set of curtains. ‘This one obviously just wasn’t right…’
So why do I find myself here - deep in rural Arizona, meeting two wives who bizarrely claim that it is they who do the exploiting, rather than the husband who moves between their beds virtually every other night of the week?
I was asked by a TV production company to fly around the world investigating the extraordinary relationships that women choose in the name of love.
So what should we make of polygamy, which is still practised by thousands of members of the Mormon sect? Can it really bring the kind of mutual support and sense of community that its protagonists claim?
Or is it simply a throwback to a time when a man dragged a woman back to his cave if he liked the look of her?
To find out, I travelled to Arizona, where 15 years ago Moroni Jessop married Martha. It was love for both of them - and a traditional wedding.
Except that when this blushing virgin bride was making her vows, she already knew that within a few short years her husband would be looking elsewhere for another fresh-faced ‘bride’.
So keen to accept this arrangement was Martha, now 35, that when Moroni announced it was time for another partner, she helped him to search.
The result was ‘bride’ number two, Temple, 27 - a Martha lookalike with straight dark hair, eager smile and thick glasses.
Polygamy is outlawed in America, but many polygamists live in rural backwaters. They flout the law by marrying their first wives in a traditional service and then exchanging vows with further ‘wives’ in spiritual ceremonies.
Until now, their lives have been shrouded in mystery. I am one of the first journalists ever to be invited into the homes, and lives, of polygamist families.
Three’s a crowd: (From left) Nancy, Ruth and Diane are all married to the same man
As I approach the humble three bedroom home where the husband, two wives and assorted offspring live, I expect to meet a dominant male who plays off the insecurities of his wives to brutal effect - demanding sex with whichever wife is in favour, and impregnating them like some kind of stud bull (the women have nine children between them, and Temple is pregnant again).
Instead, I am greeted by a man who is articulate, intelligent and softly spoken. True, physically speaking Moroni - named after a Mormon god - is hardly a catch.
Overweight, buck-toothed and with a wispy goatee, I can’t imagine him inciting passion or jealousy.
But this construction worker is softly spoken and considerate, and it becomes clear that both wives adore him, as do the ever-present crowd of children.
Both wives listen to him with rapt attention as he explains that the purpose of polygamy is for one man to produce as large a clan as possible.
When Moroni complains that life for a polygamist husband is hard, incredibly his wives sympathise.
He says: 'It takes a lot of work and patience to deal with the emotions of more than one wife. When I became a polygamist with my second marriage, I did not have a good time at all.
'There were so many demands on me and it seemed that both of my wives were always angry with me.
'I would get home from work and park on the driveway, and then just sit in the car thinking: “OK, which one is going to be mad at me now?”
'I don’t know exactly how it changed, or when, but a year later I was in the living room lying on the couch and Martha and Temple were in the kitchen playing Scrabble together and laughing. I realised then that I was happy.
‘My children and my wives are the purpose of my existence. Other men might go out and have affairs and then leave wife number one to go and marry wife number two. But I have made a real commitment to both of my wives.’
I can’t help asking the question: if Moroni had been in a normal, monogamous marriage to Martha, would he have been unfaithful?
He pauses and then gulps. ‘Er, yes, I probably would have been unfaithful.’
So there we are - perhaps this lifestyle is simply an adulterer’s refuge, for while the wives are busy making the home, Moroni is out there making whoopee in his search for a third spouse.
Exploitation: Dawn (front left) with Boyd’s three wives Nancy and Diane (back row left) and Ruth (back row far right) and his children
He says sadly: ‘I can’t seem to find The One. I’ve made a few mistakes, and when things don’t work out and I’ve had my feelings hurt I mope around. Then finally Temple says “Just get over it” when she’s had enough of my moods, and I’m forced to snap out of it.’
I watched as both wives - make-up free and wearing modest jeans and T-shirts - prepare dinner for their husband and his nine offspring. Each wife has her own bedroom, and the children sleep with their mothers or share a third bedroom.
Martha insists it’s the wives who decide who will have their husband that
night.
She tells me: ‘We don’t get jealous. We know that he loves us both equally and there’s room for a third wife. Having her in the house won’t mean that he loves us less.’
So how does the household actually work? The first night I sleep on the couch, but before bedtime I watch as the children dutifully kiss their parents goodnight.
Then Moroni gets up to retire, and after whispering with both wives he disappears into Martha’s room.
Temple - pregnant and tired, looks relieved. Meanwhile, I am left to sleep. So many women - myself included - joke that what every woman needs is a wife and while Moroni is out at work, Martha and Temple share the childcare, the cooking and household chores, and enjoy what seems to be a real friendship.
If one has a row with Moroni, she can turn to the other ‘wife’ for support. But it makes me feel slightly nauseous to watch one wife lead the husband to a bedroom, while the other sleeps alone.
The next morning, Moroni once again tries to convince me that this is tough for him.
He complains: ‘There are times when sex becomes a chore, because I’m trying to keep two women satisfied. I always try to be fair, and I tend to just go from Martha’s room to Temple’s room alternately.’
But are these women not consumed with jealousy? He shrugs. ‘Sometimes there is awkwardness. I try to reassure them that I love them both by kissing them throughout the day.’
This is starting to sound like a warped version of Little House On The Prairie. I bid my goodbyes and leave - both wives smiling by Moroni’s side as they wave farewell.
My next stop is Centennial Park, deep in the Arizona desert, a community of fundamental Mormons who still practise polygamy.
Here, they live an affluent lifestyle - and I draw up to the gated mansion where a wealthy businessman in his 60s lives with his three wives and 16 children.
Boyd is away on business, but I am greeted instead by two of his wives. Nancy became Boyd’s second wife 17 years after he married childhood sweetheart Diane.
Shortly afterwards he married again - to third wife Ruth. It is like walking onto the set of The Stepford Wives.
Ruth and Nancy show me the enormous kitchen, the ornate dining table, the immaculate reception room and the television room.
Upstairs are ten bedrooms - including one for each wife, and a separate bedroom for Boyd.
Ruth - a blonde, Meryl Streep lookalike - tells me that she has ‘eight beautiful children’.
The remaining eight are between the other wives, but she can’t actually remember how many are boys or how many are girls.
We discuss marriage. I tell her that I dream about my own wedding day - walking down the aisle with the man I love, with our family and friends watching. It will be my day, so how would it feel to have another wife sitting in the front aisle, beaming as I marry her husband?
Ruth shrugs. 'Everyone has this rose-tinted view of marriage. I accepted Boyd’s first two wives as part of the package. If I wanted him in my life, they were both going to be part of it too.
'In so many marriages, men just tire of their wives after a few years, so they get divorced, move on and marry again, until that first flush of love also disappears and they move on again.
'So what is wrong with a man being able to have variety and a woman having friendship and learning to share?
'Surely it is better for a man to stay with several wives and raise his children, and for them to be the main part of his life, rather than couples who simply divorce and leave their children with no family stability.
‘I don’t know why the world looks down on polygamy when family and love are the most important things in our life.’
Ruth certainly seems happy enough and later, as I watch her and Nancy prepare the dinner for 16 children, I’m amazed at the calm.
Both wives chat happily as they share the cooking, and the children - aged from 14 to two years old - treat both equally as their mothers.
Nancy - wife number two - explains that she was raised in a polygamous family.
She says: 'I was free to choose if that was what I wanted for myself, and I really thought about it when I was a teenager.
‘I had four mothers and 40 siblings, but I could have chosen to just marry one man who was going to be monogamous.’
In the end, Nancy’s religious convictions won through - she believes the polygamist ethos that somehow sharing her husband will make her a god or goddess in a second life.
Well, I guess you would need a pretty good reason to share your husband sexually with two other women. She and Ruth claim that there is no jealousy or awkwardness between them.
But as evening approaches, Boyd’s first wife Diane is still nowhere to be seen, and I start to wonder if this woman, who enjoyed her husband to herself for 17 years, until she started to lose her youth and her looks, might have a different story to tell.
When I meet Diane, she strikes me as kind but a little withdrawn. She is 63 now, and tells me she raised her children with Boyd as man and wife until suddenly he announced that he wanted to take a second wife.
Thoughthey were both Mormons, after all those years together she had felt that their marriage was strong and happy and that he would feel no need to seek physical satisfaction with another wife.
His decision - taken just as Diane was losing her youth and her looks - was utterly devastating to her.
For more than a decade, she has not discussed her feelings with anyone. Now she sits trembling beside me and I realise that at last the shiny facade of polygamy is being stripped away before my eyes.
She speaks softly. ‘I was married for 17 years, and it was really tough when Nancy came along. I don’t agree when people claim that there is no jealousy, because that’s not what happened to me.
‘I’d walk into my living room and my husband would have his arm around her, and my heart would start to pound. I would think to myself: "Gosh, why did you have to walk in now and see that.’’ ’
It was a bitterness she has lived with for 15 years - swallowing her emotions as an even younger third wife was welcomed into the house as Boyd’s latest plaything.
I find it hard to imagine the pain of this woman as she watched her husband impregnate his younger wives time and time again.
Diane tells me softly that she has suffered depression for those 15 years. It was only three years ago - when she faced a near-terminal illness - that the bitterness began to fade.
She says: ‘I became really sick and the other wives nursed me. Somehow, and I don’t know how or why, my animosity towards those two girls ebbed away.’
I leave her wringing her hands in miserable silence. Diane’s unhappiness is overwhelming.
She is the only wife of the five I have met who is honest enough to admit that jealousy, despair and depression are the inevitable fallout when a man finds the excuse to take two or three wives and share them all sexually and emotionally.
My journey into the lives - and many loves - of a polygamist is over. The beaming children, the adoring wives and the homespun philosophy of sharing and love are the images they were keen to portray.
But it’s the memory of the lonely, elderly woman forced to sit to one side as her husband cavorts with her younger rivals which haunts me.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic … re-husband.*

Also I have found this note of advice concerning research about polygamy today (that seems very balanced)

*There are a number of organizations that can provide you with general stats. One organization is at polygamy.org. The founder is a former FLDS wife and can provide certain statistic.

There is a research resource located here: apologeticsindex.org/122-pol … -resources . The site contains numerous links to resources. Keep in mind that most information and research-based organizations consider polygamist communities cults, because they practice severe “isolation” techniques consistent with cult behaviour, generally. If that colours your perspective on the information these organizations are providing, then perhaps you want to go to the source.

You can also read Jon Krakauer’s excellent book, “Under the Banner of Heaven,” which profiles the history of the LDS movement (and later the FLDS movement, which still practices polygamy). There are few stats in the book (some, but not a lot), but there is significant factual data about the polygamist movement and what positive and negative aspects to it are present. I found it to be a fascinating read. Indeed, years before this current debacle in Texas, he chronicles the lives of the followers of Warren Jeffs (whose father Roland Jeffs was the former leader until his death).

Good luck. I hope you figure out what many people who’ve studied the groups have learned.

By the way, I do know there are quite alarming statistics about the birth defects among the kids.*

We’ve jettisoned slavery, a form of which is mandated in the Hebrew Bible, because it does not accord with the full digity of persons revaled in Christ; and I’m inclined to reject polygamy as no longer relevant for the same reasons.

Blessings

Dick

“But it’s the memory of the lonely, elderly woman forced to sit to one side as her husband cavorts with her younger rivals which haunts me.”

That’s a strong image…

I love the bit in Ecclesiastes where Solomon complains he’s a grasshopper that’s run out of hop. “…desire is no longer stirred.” Hundreds of wives, and he can satisfy none of them. He knows it. They know it. Soon enough, everyone knows it. Serves him right, the old letch.

US government census 2000: ratio of single men to single women of marriageable age = 86. Lies, damned lies and statistics.

No justification whatsoever for polygamy in the modern west at least (and doubtless most other places too). It’s nothing more than an excuse for greedy, selfish, incontinent men to exploit insecure and vulnerable women. Polygamist ‘mormon’ child abuser Warren Jeffs is quite rightly languishing in jail. Nuff said.

Pip pip

Johnny

Hey sobornost

Some interesting reading. Concerning slavery, it could be worse today than in previous history, but it is underground. Our modern society feels it has grown up and is more sophisticated, but there is plenty of sorrow, and abuse that goes on in our society. The divorce rate is terribly high. Government laws declaring something illegal, can actually bring about more problems and isolation. Slavery has not been jettisoned, because it will exist during the 1000 years. Israel has the right to own slaves.

"When a woman leaves an abusive monogamous marriage, one never reads, “Woman Escapes Monogamy.”

When a monogamist man embezzles money from his workplace, one never sees the caption, “Monogamist Guilty of Embezzlement.”

Articles begin with titles such as, “Polygamist Cult Leader …”, as if polygamists somehow owned a monopoly on cult leadership; after all, have you ever seen “Monogamist Cult Leader …” as an attention-grabbing headline?

As is evidenced by past newspaper headlines, they would apparently have us believe that monogamist men aren’t quite the scoundrels that polygamist are!

Polygamist Investigated for Welfare Fraud
Polygamist Arrested for Rape
Polygamist Charged with Sexual Assault
Polygamist Suspected of Drug Abuse
Polygamist Questioned for Murder
Polygamist Charged with Spousal Abuse
Polygamist Indicted on Kidnapping
Polygamist Found Guilty of Abuse

With such crimes being so exclusively perpetrated by non-monogamists, there is little wonder that polygamy is despised by Western culture."
Clyde L. Pilkington, Jr.

Johnny it is as you said, “Polygimist ‘mormon’ child abuser Warren Jeffs”

Do you think greedy, selfish, incontinent men are only able to exploit women through polygamy? Let’s be careful not to slander. Was Abraham greedy, selfish, incontinent? Let us not slander him.

Thanks for all the info, Prof :slight_smile: I read the article, and it is certainly thought-provoking.

You and Cindy may be right that polygamy is really no better than slavery, and even though it’s present in the Bible that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing… however, we can’t get around the fact that slavery, by it’s very nature, is non-consensual, while polygamy is consensual, at least in most cases…
Whether the multiple women (or in rare cases men) are talked into it via religious influences or in some other way, the fact remains that in most cases it is their choice (barring those cases of young children being pushed into polygamist marriages, which is really messed up, and unacceptable), in which case the whole issue is on a different playing field than slavery.

So I stand by what I said about it being nobody’s business, as long as it is mutually agreed upon and consensual.
And we could say that polygamy is wrong, like slavery, which it may well be, but if we insist on it being illegal in every case (I totally agree that pushing children into polygamous marriages should be flatly illegal, but adults choosing freely to enter into polygamous marriages is another story), then more highly conservative types who believe that all forms of marriage outside of ‘one man, one woman’ should not be tolerated will use the same logic to condemn gay and lesbian marriages as well, which I know many of us here (including myself, Johnny, and others) feel pretty passionately about.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that in a democracy there should be room for mature adults to make their own choices, including what forms their relationships will take, as long as those choices are agreed upon and consensual on all fronts.
Of course this is a double edged sword, because often the choices people make can be harmful, to themselves or to others, even though they did not intend them to be…
But, then again, if you’re going to live in a free country, then that’s just the nature of the beast I think, unless you want to draw the line in the sand so far back that you’re left without much freedom at all…

I personally think that polygamy is a bad idea, though it may seem to work for a rare few… reading Sobernost’s article makes me think though… maybe I’m wrong to think that it does work in a few cases… maybe it just appears to, but it really doesn’t, and maybe it is wrong, and we should all stick to monogamous marriages… but I still think in a democratic society people should have room to make their own choices, as long as all parties agree and consent, even if those choices will bring pain and disappointment to all parties in the long run… but I’d rather the door be open for people to make choices like that then to have governments telling people that they can’t do this or that even though no one’s rights are being violated in this or that… if people can argue that polygamy should be illegal because it’s unnatural, then they can just as easily argue that gay marriage should be illegal because it’s unnatural…
Like I said, we need to leave some room for freedom, unless we want to draw the line in the sand so far back that we’re left without much freedom at all…

Not sure if I’m making any sense, I could just be talking out of my butt :laughing:

This is a complicated issue I know, but anyways, I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

Good discussion, thanks for bringing up all these interesting issues, Puddy :wink:

Blessings to you :slight_smile:

Matt

Hi Puddy –

Well I wasn’t quoting any of the anti-polygamy sites – although I see there are hugely polemical pro and anti sites on the web – I get the feeling that it is one of these virtual wars of little substance :confused: .

The article I did copy and paste seems pretty balanced and not polemical in tone – the other post cut and pasted seems again to avoid polemics.

I think when women escape a brutal monogamous marriage they escape a brutal individual – and it’s relatively easy to escape a monogamous marriage. I think the amount of control exerted by the man in polygamous marriage is far greater and therefore the potential for abuse is greater

I think it’s a real blessings that men and women should relate to each other as equals. It seems to me very difficult to believe that women in polygamous relationships are related to as equals by their men folk. Obviously there may be some consolation in the sisterhood of wives, but it seems to me that the thrust of this new enthusiasm for polygamy is about patriarchal domination of women. I am so glad there are many independent minded and spirited women on this site who I can relate to as equals rather than abstractions. If polygamy became the norm – you can bet your life this would not be the case.

The way Jesus treated women with gentle respect, not being afraid of their company in public etc, etc went against many of the honour and shame underpinnings of patriarchal polygamy in which women are the breeding property of men (wives confined to the private sphere, begin made pregnant as often as they can physically cope is staple of polygamy). In the early Church (the first three centuries) women often chose the life of virgins as a sort of liberation from a life of pure biological necessity – and many became great community leaders. This was their only way at the time to attain full spiritual equality – but for many reasons this is not the case today.

There are indeed forms of slavery prevalent today – but I thank God that Christians in the end decided against the slave trade proper. I think we now need to fight against other forms of slavery. It’s not part of my personal belief that Israel will have slaves during the millennium – we can agree to differ on this one.

Regarding Abraham and the Patriarchs – I’ve no need to condemn them; polygamy made perfect sense at their times. But I believe in progressive revelation and think we have a fuller revelation in Christ.

I’m still very much your friend Puddy – really am. Don’t get upset if you get some joshing here. Just think of it this way. ; you are posing controversial questions way outside of the remit of what we agree on as universalist Christians. And you’ll get some spirited answers :wink:

Blessings old chum

Dick

Blessings as well!
Puddy-