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]

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.

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.

Yes, exactly.

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.

Can you explain please?

 

[Keith Martin]

Sassy is the word that comes to mind.

Pot . . . kettle . . .

 

[Keith Martin]

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

How do hurt feelings help anyone understand Yah's Word?

 

[Keith Martin]

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.

Other than coerced arranged marriages, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone lacked the opportunity to write their own vows. If one just unthinkingly sleepwalks into marriage by saying what they think they need to say in order to fully conform, then he or she is responsible for making that choice -- instead of putting it off on playing the "I Had No Other Choice" tune on his or her miniature violin.

 

[LDremoved]

How do hurt feelings help anyone understand Yah's Word?

I wasn't really referencing hurt feelings. More that understanding and being empathetic to others feelings is sometimes necessary to teach them the word of God. If you don't know where someone is coming from or the root of their issues with the Bible/God then it's difficult to expect them to open their minds to it.

Other than coerced arranged marriages, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone lacked the opportunity to write their own vows. If one just unthinkingly sleepwalks into marriage by saying what they think they need to say in order to fully conform, then he or she is responsible for making that choice -- instead of putting it off on playing the "I Had No Other Choice" tune on his or her miniature violin.

Pot . . . kettle . . .

Alright, Mr. Martin, you don't get to come in here all snarky today just because you have a new supermodel avatar

 

[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.

Can you explain please?

Sure. What you've written is akin to a straw man argument, a major form of red herrings, because you're standing up an hypothetical argument made by hypothetical men and then bravely shooting it through of holes. If someone here were arguing the position you claim to exist, then it would be fair game for you to argue against it, but otherwise it's like doing forensic battle with a ghost.

 

[LDremoved]

Sure. What you've written is akin to a straw man argument, a major form of red herrings, because you're standing up an hypothetical argument made by hypothetical men and then bravely shooting it through of holes. If someone here were arguing the position you claim to exist, then it would be fair game for you to argue against it, but otherwise it's like doing forensic battle with a ghost.

because you're standing up an hypothetical argument made by hypothetical men and then bravely shooting it through of holes. If someone here were arguing the position you claim to exist, then it would be fair game for you to argue against it, but otherwise it's like doing forensic battle with a ghost

I see now. I genuinely didn't understand it. I went back and re-read it, thank you.

 

[Keith Martin]

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.

How do hurt feelings help anyone understand Yah's Word?

I wasn't really referencing hurt feelings. More that understanding and being empathetic to others feelings is sometimes necessary to teach them the word of God. If you don't know where someone is coming from or the root of their issues with the Bible/God then it's difficult to expect them to open their minds to it.

1. What were you referencing if not "hurt feelings?"
2. Of course, being empathetic is a useful tool in regard to being persuasive, but I would assert that this is a matter of putting the cart before the horse. Attempting to teach a person something when that person rejects the source material will always be fatally inefficient. Furthermore, to insist on teaching someone who's not open to it qualifies as disrespectful attempted coercion. Discovering the 'why' is generally the purview of highly-trained psychiatrists, and even then typically not worth the price of admission. People pursue knowledge when they're ready, willing and able -- and efforts to force the process, even through "well-intentioned" sympathy, rarely produce functional results. The person has to face his or her own demons in any matter about which he or she is stuck. When it comes to Scripture, it's a combination of internal resolution and the dance that involves what Yah puts on his or her heart. Way too often, we see ourselves as missionaries of salvation -- and then we justify treating people as if they would be helpless without us.

Instead of reinforcing the hurt feelings, it's perfectly admissible and predominantly much more likely to lead to improved well-being for one's helpee to simply let him or her stew in his or her own juices long enough that it becomes sufficiently uncomfortable to inspire doing the work that will lead to transformation. Then, instead of being rewarded for presenting oneself as a victim, one will come to you with requests for the knowledge you previously wanted to spoon feed.

Sound bite version: we don't save souls; souls first individually recognize the need to be saved and then they are available to let Him work His salvation.

 

[Keith Martin]

Alright, Mr. Martin, you don't get to come in here all snarky today just because you have a new supermodel avatar

Flattery will get you everywhere!

And here I was thinking I should take that photo down in short order due to it being goofy-ass looking . . .

 

[Keith Martin]

I see now. I genuinely didn't understand it. I went back and re-read it, thank you.

You're welcome, and I had already posted another reply, so I pray I haven't just ended up being confusing. I posted without checking to see if you'd written anything further.

Thanks for your continued efforts to challenge us with your Devil's Advocate arguments.

 

[LDremoved]

• What were you referencing if not "hurt feelings?"

I had to go back and look because i've had so many conversations today lol. Ok, so I misread what Nick said as "feelings" not "hurt" feelings. That's what my response consisted of. That's why it doesn't make sense.

1. Of course, being empathetic is a useful tool in regard to being persuasive, but I would assert that this is a matter of putting the cart before the horse. Attempting to teach a person something when that person rejects the source material will always be fatally inefficient. Furthermore, to insist on teaching someone who's not open to it qualifies as disrespectful attempted coercion. Discovering the 'why' is generally the purview of highly-trained psychiatrists, and even then typically not worth the price of admission. People pursue knowledge when they're ready, willing and able -- and efforts to force the process, even through "well-intentioned" sympathy, rarely produce functional results. The person has to face his or her own demons in any matter about which he or she is stuck. When it comes to Scripture, it's a combination of internal resolution and the dance that involves what Yah puts on his or her heart. Way too often, we see ourselves as missionaries of salvation -- and then we justify treating people as if they would be helpless without us.

Instead of reinforcing the hurt feelings, it's perfectly admissible and predominantly much more likely to lead to improved well-being for one's helpee to simply let him or her stew in his or her own juices long enough that it becomes sufficiently uncomfortable to inspire doing the work that will lead to transformation. Then, instead of being rewarded for presenting oneself as a victim, one will come to you with requests for the knowledge you previously wanted to spoon feed.

Sound bite version: we don't save souls; souls first individually recognize the need to be saved and then they are available to let Him work His salvation.

I agree with you under certain circumstances but people may be searching for something and not even know what it is until they have a conversation with you. So yes, while I agree in general with what you're saying, i'm not at a place in my life to be completely convinced of that argument just yet.

You're welcome, and I had already posted another reply, so I pray I haven't just ended up being confusing. I posted without checking to see if you'd written anything further.

No, it's ok! Thank you for pointing it out to me honestly I didn't realize what I did.

And here I was thinking I should take that photo down in short order due to it being goofy-ass looking . . .

Nooo lol you have a sweet smile, doesn't look goofy at all! I'm low-key jealous of your hair though

 

[Keith Martin]

I'm low-key jealous of your hair though

You haven't seen it in person! Low-key would turn to no-key.

 

[Keith Martin]

while I agree in general with what you're saying, i'm not at a place in my life to be completely convinced of that argument just yet.

OK -- I'll avoid trying to teach you anything more about it until you're ready.

 

[LDremoved]

OK -- I'll avoid trying to teach you anything more about it until you're ready.

Lol! I do appreciate it though

 

[Keith Martin]

Lol! I do appreciate it though

Just trying to set a good example -- at least in this instance . . .

 

[MemeFan]

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.

First baby is also big change. Since babies are seen as positive (at least in our circles) nobody complains.

Same with other lifestyle change. For example, suddenly moving away from overbearing parents so that couple has peace.

 

[LDremoved]

First baby is also big change. Since babies are seen as positive (at least in our circles) nobody complains.

Same with other lifestyle change. For example, suddenly moving away from overbearing parents so that couple has peace.

Yes, I guess. I still consider those reasonable lifestyle changes that one would expect within a marriage to begin with though.

 

[Keith Martin]

Yes, I guess. I still consider those reasonable lifestyle changes that one would expect within a marriage to begin with though.

My advice in this regard, though, is to continuously keep in the forefront of one's mind (a) that no one can force anyone to stay, but (b) that one is foolish if one doesn't accurately assess what one's options are going to be if one leaves.

 

[MeganC]

If one just unthinkingly sleepwalks into marriage by saying what they think they need to say in order to fully conform, then he or she is responsible for making that choice -- instead of putting it off on playing the "I Had No Other Choice" tune on his or her miniature violin.

Not to be flippant here but you described my experience as a naïve 18yo perfectly.