Prayer request Praise -Wife accepting plural marriage

[IshChayil]

...
She may say she accepts and wants poly or she may say she doesn't, biblically you don't need her permission in any way...

I've thought about this for some time in the past; I came down on "do to others how you would have them do to you" so I'm not so sure it's correct that we can just take additional wives without our other wives' being on board. If I was a woman I sure as heck wouldn't want that done to me; I'd want to have some say in the process at least on if the gal was someone I could get along with or if she was an unholy beyotch that the hubby didn't notice b/c he didn't have to deal with her on an equal level (like co-wives sometimes need to do).
Not saying the gals are in charge, just that whole Messiah thing makes things a bit stickier than just adding gals as we please.
We also don't want our families to fall apart if, Gd forbid we husbands die. I want my ladies to stay together with the kids who love them and that would be less likely to happen if they didn't like each other from the get go.
***edit****
1 additional thought, any of you gents who made generic vows "I promise to take you and no other till death do us part" I think may be screwed. You dun made a vow to the lady, (maybe to) her parents, and (maybe) to the L-rd that you won't have any others so for sure in those cases she has to release you from that vow you made (unwittingly) to her.
Vow breaking is a very dangerous thing and for any of you who are at all interested in the Jewish perspective, the sages say it results in the death of children (of course who knows but a vow is a big deal).
In my wedding to my 2nd wife the one marrying us flubbed up, someone had screwed with the script even after I told him to be sure not to put any of that tyrannical monogamist stuff in there. IN the middle of the ceremony he asked me to repeat a vow, knowing that I had another wife at home, saying "I vow to give my life to you and no other" (paraphrase). I just said "I do" then I immediately leaned in and whispered to him he had to relieve me of the vow immediately before sundown and then it was very uncofortable to say the same thing to my bride. She of course knew but it wasn't a super romantic thing to have to say as we are getting married.

The height of sin would be to just abandon a first wife b/c she wasn't on board with an additional one. It's not her fault the man changed his perspective post-marriage. She has to be won over and can't just be pushed aside.

I know 1 fella who just abandoned his 1st wife b/c she refused to do the whole Plural marriage thing. In his mind it's all her fault for being disobedient, etc. If I were a betting man, I'd bet he made a vow to her to only marry her... that's a dangerous situation to be in.

 

[Joleneakamama]

When a wife is this focused on her self and her emotions its only a matter of time before she walks out, despite what you do or don't do in regards to poly, years living poly in mine and friends lives proves this to be true.

That is a bad focus. It seems obvious that the most important things isn't loving each other, but rather fearing YHWH. (As in being very concerned about what He wants rather then what we think we want)
If the fear of YHWH is the beginning of wisdom, it's not hard to agree with Prov. 31:30 "Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised."

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

I suppose we have a choice, to either live in fear or live in faith. I have always said that men think, and women feel, which I readily acknowledge, is a stereotype, but it generally holds true. You need both wings of the plane to fly, but when it comes to decision making, it is best to allow the wife to provide feedback, and leave the decision making to the husband. It is like the head processes the information fed to it by the sensory system, so that the brain knows to tell the hand to remove itself from the hot stove, only because the hand informs the brain that the stove is hot. The hand is constantly providing feedback to the brain, but the brain can process the feedback that is most important to address. I don't know if any wife will ever approach polygamy without at least 1% hesistancy, and you can choose to wait indefinitely, but you will never fly, if you don't take that leap of faith, sooner or later. I like what @IshChayil said, and I think that is a good guide, that when your wife is ready to release you from that vow you may or may not have made, because it was at least implied when you married her, that is the best time to take that leap. Certainly more input from those who have a second or third wife, is welcome here, as opinions thrown around by those of us who only have one, is speculative at best.

 

[steve]

that when your wife is ready to release you from that vow you may or may not have made, because it was at least implied when you married her, that is the best time to take that leap.

What’d that other guy say?
Slow is smooth and smooth is fast? Something like that.

 

[Maverick]

I've thought about this for some time in the past; I came down on "do to others how you would have them do to you" so I'm not so sure it's correct that we can just take additional wives without our other wives' being on board. If I was a woman I sure as heck wouldn't want that done to me; I'd want to have some say in the process at least on if the gal was someone I could get along with or if she was an unholy beyotch that the hubby didn't notice b/c he didn't have to deal with her on an equal level (like co-wives sometimes need to do).
Not saying the gals are in charge, just that whole Messiah thing makes things a bit stickier than just adding gals as we please.
We also don't want our families to fall apart if, Gd forbid we husbands die. I want my ladies to stay together with the kids who love them and that would be less likely to happen if they didn't like each other from the get go.
***edit****
1 additional thought, any of you gents who made generic vows "I promise to take you and no other till death do us part" I think may be screwed. You dun made a vow to the lady, (maybe to) her parents, and (maybe) to the L-rd that you won't have any others so for sure in those cases she has to release you from that vow you made (unwittingly) to her.
Vow breaking is a very dangerous thing and for any of you who are at all interested in the Jewish perspective, the sages say it results in the death of children (of course who knows but a vow is a big deal).
In my wedding to my 2nd wife the one marrying us flubbed up, someone had screwed with the script even after I told him to be sure not to put any of that tyrannical monogamist stuff in there. IN the middle of the ceremony he asked me to repeat a vow, knowing that I had another wife at home, saying "I vow to give my life to you and no other" (paraphrase). I just said "I do" then I immediately leaned in and whispered to him he had to relieve me of the vow immediately before sundown and then it was very uncofortable to say the same thing to my bride. She of course knew but it wasn't a super romantic thing to have to say as we are getting married.

The height of sin would be to just abandon a first wife b/c she wasn't on board with an additional one. It's not her fault the man changed his perspective post-marriage. She has to be won over and can't just be pushed aside.

I know 1 fella who just abandoned his 1st wife b/c she refused to do the whole Plural marriage thing. In his mind it's all her fault for being disobedient, etc. If I were a betting man, I'd bet he made a vow to her to only marry her... that's a dangerous situation to be in.

You are correct. Covenant breakers(v31) are worthy of death (Romans 1: 28-32). I heard a man preach that marriage is a covenant (as we know). Many of us make a covenant under the monogamy only deception and with you alone type vows. This guy said that it is possible to make a new covenant with the first wife. In this case, the covenant has not been broken with the first wife but a new covenant/agreement is made. A new covenant with the understanding that plural marriage is possible and expected.

I am now in this space with my wife. She knows my desire for biblical plural marriage but I know I married her while she expected a monogamous covenant. So without my wife making a consensual change to our original covenant I will happily remain monogamous. If she agrees to a new covenant agreement, I will be free to add a wife or wives to my family.

 

[frederick]

You are correct. Covenant breakers(v31) are worthy of death (Romans 1: 28-32). I heard a man preach that marriage is a covenant (as we know). Many of us make a covenant under the monogamy only deception and with you alone type vows. This guy said that it is possible to make a new covenant with the first wife. In this case, the covenant has not been broken with the first wife but a new covenant/agreement is made. A new covenant with the understanding that plural marriage is possible and expected.

I am now in this space with my wife. She knows my desire for biblical plural marriage but I know I married her while she expected a monogamous covenant. So without my wife making a consensual change to our original covenant I will happily remain monogamous. If she agrees to a new covenant agreement, I will be free to add a wife or wives to my family.

I'm soooo glad, and thank God for His providential blessing, that I never made the monogamy-only vow even though I knew nothing of the truth of multiple wives at the time. I'm especially thankful to my wife who keeps everything; she kept the index card I wrote my vow on and which I read from. So I know exactly what I said and that's been a huge help. I also know exactly what she said and that's also been a wonderful blessing. Vows are binding so we mustn't treat the breaking of any vow lightly. May Almighty God bless you for holding fast to the vows you've made. Cheers

 

[Maverick]

I'm soooo glad, and thank God for His providential blessing, that I never made the monogamy-only vow even though I knew nothing of the truth of multiple wives at the time. I'm especially thankful to my wife who keeps everything; she kept the index card I wrote my vow on and which I read from. So I know exactly what I said and that's been a huge help. I also know exactly what she said and that's also been a wonderful blessing. Vows are binding so we mustn't treat the breaking of any vow lightly. May Almighty God bless you for holding fast to the vows you've made. Cheers

I really appreciate IshChayil and your Holy Spirit led conviction about covenant breaking. Really good stuff... Praise The Lord! This came off the heels of last week for me reading and listening about this very topic from a Christian Polygamist as well.

I have a specific lady in mind. My wife knows. And now that my wife knows my complete intent I have been able to stay away(as in not go around the lady in mind), not bring up the topic and see where The Lord takes this. It is really strange for me. Sometimes I want this so bad... Other times I wonder what I am thinking as life is really good with all of the freedom and free time I could ever want. Stoked to see what The Lord does here.

 

[Maverick]

Here is a website and person that I came across who is a national polygamy advocate.

Here are his thoughts on covenant breaking vs. making a new covenant with the first wife. Just thought I would put this out there for others to muse about.

His thoughts on wedding vows vs. covenant agreement.

His thoughts on covenant breaking.

Again... Just trying to give ourselves things to think about as well as help us work out our salvation in fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12)


** I came across the above information in the last couple of weeks. Learning about covenant breaking actually spared my marriage as I not only revealed to my wife that I wanted plural marriage but a month later, the person I was considering. My poor wife was ready to walk away from the faith and our marriage to allow me to pursue what she thought I wanted. I told her again that we are for life and that I was not going to blow up our family just to begin another.

Using the above website information and Romans 1, I went over how we have a covenant and I am not going to break it. With the Word of God, she did not want to break our covenant either (Thank You Jesus!). During this conversation, she said that she felt bad that she could not consent. I told her to not feel bad and that a lack of consent or her future consent would be His will. I encouraged her that if she never chooses to give consent that I would be good with that and trust in Christ that it was not to be.

Again, if The Lord does not stir the heart of my wife, I know it is His will for me to remain monogamous with her and I am good with that. But it is the above articles that helped me come to that conclusion and give me true peace on waiting on The Lord. This thread only confirmed for me this matter even more.

Love in Christ to all

**We have had two conversations... The initial one and then a month later I told her who I had in mind. Maybe not recommended, but I believed that the initial conversation was not concluded until I shared with her everything.

 

[rockfox]

The greatest and most immediate blessing is that it removes this as a point of contention between you.

There are few blessings greater than a marriage with true unity. It saddens me greatly how rarely I see marriages that have it.

When a wife is this focused on her self and her emotions its only a matter of time before she walks out

The Bible teaches marriage to be a mirror of our relationship to Christ, and the biggest way this should be true is that the wife should die to her will in total submission to her husband. If you have that, you'll have unity and peace. This is something most marriages get wrong. But it's hard for them to get that right as most Christians have it wrong with respect to God as well.

 

[FollowingHim]

Here is a website and person that I came across who is a national polygamy advocate.

Here are his thoughts on covenant breaking vs. making a new covenant with the first wife. Just thought I would put this out there for others to muse about.

His thoughts on wedding vows vs. covenant agreement.

His thoughts on covenant breaking.

Again... Just trying to give ourselves things to think about as well as help us work out our salvation in fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12)


** I came across the above information in the last couple of weeks. Learning about covenant breaking actually spared my marriage as I not only revealed to my wife that I wanted plural marriage but a month later, the person I was considering. My poor wife was ready to walk away from the faith and our marriage to allow me to pursue what she thought I wanted. I told her again that we are for life and that I was not going to blow up our family just to begin another.

Using the above website information and Romans 1, I went over how we have a covenant and I am not going to break it. With the Word of God, she did not want to break our covenant either (Thank You Jesus!). During this conversation, she said that she felt bad that she could not consent. I told her to not feel bad and that a lack of consent or her future consent would be His will. I encouraged her that if she never chooses to give consent that I would be good with that and trust in Christ that it was not to be.

Again, if The Lord does not stir the heart of my wife, I know it is His will for me to remain monogamous with her and I am good with that. But it is the above articles that helped me come to that conclusion and give me true peace on waiting on The Lord. This thread only confirmed for me this matter even more.

Love in Christ to all

**We have had two conversations... The initial one and then a month later I told her who I had in mind. Maybe not recommended, but I believed that the initial conversation was not concluded until I shared with her everything.

Mark Henkel claimed the title "National Polygamy Advocate" for himself many, many years ago. Don't be fooled by the title, he's not appointed by anyone else, that's just the label he uses. He's good at working the media and promoting himself. But in doing this, he has probably done some good over the years by giving people who would not have seen it otherwise some exposure to the fact that polygamy can be done in a loving, consensual manner.

The main problem with his teaching is that, in attempting to avoid harm and promote loving relationships instead of abusive ones (a very good aim), he has gone too far and created his own doctrine that he sees as foundational to Christian polygamy. Below quotation from http://www.lovenotforce.com/.

Because "force polygamy" is both cruel and un-Christian, because women needed (and need) to be protected from such cruelty, and because the very sake of the "movement" of Christian Polygamy was at serious risk of soon becoming destroyed by such ungodly and cruel men and their false ideas, the need for a solution became vitally essential. The man known as "Mark the Founder" (from TruthBearer.org) addressed the matter. On July 13, 1999, he wrote an important article and therewith coined the new term, "love-not-force". He called it, "The Truth Bearer Vision of love-not-force", and it remains as the Vision of the TruthBearer organization to this day. In the years that followed, he laid down all the principles of the teaching of "love-not-force", and it has come to be known in many different circles, including non-Christian ones, as simply,"love-not-force".

Mindset & Standard
Consequently, "love-not-force" has become a mindset, in both Christian and non-Christian circles.

More importantly, "love-not-force" has now become the standard by which TRUE Christian Polygamy is defined. This new terminology is now the means of verbally expressing that standard.

If a person can not or will not walk in the teachings of "love-not-force", then they are NOT walking in TRUE Christian Polygamy.

Love-not-force is a laudable aim and very good advice. However, to elevate it to "the standard by which TRUE Christian Polygamy is defined" is to invent a new doctrine. This makes it a cult, however well-meaning it may be.

The reason this is not true Christian doctrine is that it directly contradicts scripture in some specific circumstances. If a man sleeps with a virgin, he is to marry her according to scripture. This means that if he has an affair, then realises he needs to correct that situation, he must marry her - even if his first wife objects. Obviously he should not have had the affair in the first place, the situation is wrong, nevertheless it happens and scripture teaches us what to do as a result. He should take his time and do whatever he can to honour and respect his first wife, but he has created obligations to the second that he must ultimately fulfil also. Love-not-force says that the first wife must never be forced into polygamy, therefore this man must disobey scripture and abandon the second woman.

Henkel seeks to promote Christian polygamy in the media etc, and therefore seeks to make polygamy more palatable to the general public. He seeks too much to please men, not God. So he has made the grave error of taking very good advice, and elevating it to the level of mandatory Christian doctrine. And declaring himself important enough to make such a doctrinal pronouncement (he calls his own writings "revelation" in places).

Henkel has done a good job of showing that polygamy can be loving. I believe he has very good intentions. Do however take his writings with a grain of salt, because he goes beyond that into cultish error.

 

[FollowingHim]

Or, to put it another way in your own words @Maverick, he's an

Ear tickling pleaser of men and lap dog servant of feminism.

 

[Maverick]

Mark Henkel claimed the title "National Polygamy Advocate" for himself many, many years ago. Don't be fooled by the title, he's not appointed by anyone else, that's just the label he uses. He's good at working the media and promoting himself. But in doing this, he has probably done some good over the years by giving people who would not have seen it otherwise some exposure to the fact that polygamy can be done in a loving, consensual manner.

The main problem with his teaching is that, in attempting to avoid harm and promote loving relationships instead of abusive ones (a very good aim), he has gone too far and created his own doctrine that he sees as foundational to Christian polygamy. Below quotation from http://www.lovenotforce.com/.

Love-not-force is a laudable aim and very good advice. However, to elevate it to "the standard by which TRUE Christian Polygamy is defined" is to invent a new doctrine. This makes it a cult, however well-meaning it may be.

The reason this is not true Christian doctrine is that it directly contradicts scripture in some specific circumstances. If a man sleeps with a virgin, he is to marry her according to scripture. This means that if he has an affair, then realises he needs to correct that situation, he must marry her - even if his first wife objects. Obviously he should not have had the affair in the first place, the situation is wrong, nevertheless it happens and scripture teaches us what to do as a result. He should take his time and do whatever he can to honour and respect his first wife, but he has created obligations to the second that he must ultimately fulfil also. Love-not-force says that the first wife must never be forced into polygamy, therefore this man must disobey scripture and abandon the second woman.

Henkel seeks to promote Christian polygamy in the media etc, and therefore seeks to make polygamy more palatable to the general public. He seeks too much to please men, not God. So he has made the grave error of taking very good advice, and elevating it to the level of mandatory Christian doctrine. And declaring himself important enough to make such a doctrinal pronouncement (he calls his own writings "revelation" in places).

Henkel has done a good job of showing that polygamy can be loving. I believe he has very good intentions. Do however take his writings with a grain of salt, because he goes beyond that into cultish error.

What you say makes sense and thank you.

Because my wife married me believing I would be monogamous with her, what he said rang true for me in my specific instance. I am not sure if I made some monogamous promise at our ceremony... but I do know that my 1st wife married me under the assumption that we would be monogamous. I am hopeful that she will be willing to make a new covenant with me in the future. If not... Hello monogamy!

 

[rockfox]

I am not sure if I made some monogamous promise at our ceremony... but I do know that my 1st wife married me under the assumption that we would be monogamous.

That's a game two can play. Did you marry her under the assumption she'd be submissive and loving?

 

[Maverick]

That's a game two can play. Did you marry her under the assumption she'd be submissive and loving?

I like that... Very true and yes I did have that assumption. Having said that, The Lord will judge me and me alone for my actions in life along with my end of the marriage covenant regardless of how my wife acts towards me. It would be nice if the preachers out there would preach the same thing to women and wives about respecting, submitting and obeying their husbands

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

But if she has violated that covenant, then she is a covenant breaker.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Mark Henkel claimed the title "National Polygamy Advocate" for himself many, many years ago. Don't be fooled by the title, he's not appointed by anyone else, that's just the label he uses. He's good at working the media and promoting himself. But in doing this, he has probably done some good over the years by giving people who would not have seen it otherwise some exposure to the fact that polygamy can be done in a loving, consensual manner.

The main problem with his teaching is that, in attempting to avoid harm and promote loving relationships instead of abusive ones (a very good aim), he has gone too far and created his own doctrine that he sees as foundational to Christian polygamy. Below quotation from http://www.lovenotforce.com/.

Love-not-force is a laudable aim and very good advice. However, to elevate it to "the standard by which TRUE Christian Polygamy is defined" is to invent a new doctrine. This makes it a cult, however well-meaning it may be.

The reason this is not true Christian doctrine is that it directly contradicts scripture in some specific circumstances. If a man sleeps with a virgin, he is to marry her according to scripture. This means that if he has an affair, then realises he needs to correct that situation, he must marry her - even if his first wife objects. Obviously he should not have had the affair in the first place, the situation is wrong, nevertheless it happens and scripture teaches us what to do as a result. He should take his time and do whatever he can to honour and respect his first wife, but he has created obligations to the second that he must ultimately fulfil also. Love-not-force says that the first wife must never be forced into polygamy, therefore this man must disobey scripture and abandon the second woman.

Henkel seeks to promote Christian polygamy in the media etc, and therefore seeks to make polygamy more palatable to the general public. He seeks too much to please men, not God. So he has made the grave error of taking very good advice, and elevating it to the level of mandatory Christian doctrine. And declaring himself important enough to make such a doctrinal pronouncement (he calls his own writings "revelation" in places).

Henkel has done a good job of showing that polygamy can be loving. I believe he has very good intentions. Do however take his writings with a grain of salt, because he goes beyond that into cultish error.

I think you can make an even stronger case with Levirate marriage. As a man, whose wife just recently has come on board, thanks largely to the wonderful folks here at BF, I know that it can be tempting to dishonor God, and proceed to take a woman, and force the issue, especially if you see that window of opportunity to do so, and I know that we don't advocate that. It takes great faith to sit back and realize that that window of opportunity might close, and then it might reopen, or another window of opportunity might come along, but while we don't know what the future holds, we do know who holds the future.

Mark was my intro to Christian Poly, as he has a couple of good videos that popped up on Google Search. Brian Kelson is great as well. While we may have some minor disagreements with different factions, labeling someone as a cult leader, implies that they are exercising some sort of mind control and claiming to have greater authority than God's Word, and that they employ threats of what may happen if you abandon their strain of practice, and I don't think Henkel rises to that level.

 

[Maverick]

But if she has violated that covenant, then she is a covenant breaker.

I do appreciate your perspective. However... I do not see her as a covenant breaker. But for the sake of argument... Let us say that she is (again I do not see her as such) a covenant breaker for lack of submission, obedience and respect.

**For the whole of our marriage my 1st wife completely lacked submission, obedience and respect. The moment I came out with my desire for Poly... Total 180 degree turn and she has shown a bent toward submitting, obedience and respect. Praise The Lord

The only way I would be allowed to divorce would be for her to commit physical fornication outside of our marriage. If she chooses in rebellion towards God to not submit to me, obey or respect me(all non divorceable offenses), that is something she will answer to and for before Christ. Her rebellion and lack of submission does not give me license to break my part of the covenant as I am also bound in Christ for the covenant that I made with her.

Bottom line wives are to submit to, obey and respect us as husbands no matter our manner of living as the commands of God are not conditional. Likewise, I am accountable to Christ how I treat my wife regardless of her actions (save for fornication outside of marriage), toward me. The commands we are given as husbands are also not conditional. In my case I feel convicted about needing a new covenant with my 1st wife before I can move on in good conscience.

Stay Zealous!

1 Peter 3

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Yeah! I am referring back to Henkel's thoughts on covenant breaking. It seems like a LOT of husbands and wives need to go back and renew their covenants (commonly referred to as vows) with one another.

 

[rockfox]

In my case I feel convicted about needing a new covenant with my 1st wife before I can move on in good conscience.

Then please do not allow me to convince you otherwise. Any poly marriage is likely to fail without your wives 100% buy-in.

But don't think that the covenant is the reason you can't have poly. If she wanted poly the covenant would be no hurdle. This is a heart issue on her part and leadership issue on yours (if you can't see both of those ask and I'll unpack).

I did not bring it up to say that you should move forward against her wishes or negate the covenant. Even if that was your right, it would be unwise. Nor did I bring it up as something to hold over her head and force her hand. You can't logically force her hand but it won't get her emotional buy in; a situation that reliably leads to poly failure.

But it can be a tool to clear the air so to speak and get you moving forward by demonstrating to her in how high of esteem she actually holds your marital covenant/contract. She's holding you to something she herself holds as no account. And given that, there are a whole host of reasons why she should release you from that and make a new agreement. This is especially true since submission/headship is part and parcel to marriage.


All that said, as a larger principle apart from any personal strategic advice, I have a very hard time swallowing the idea that the marital covenant is something that a husband can be held to 100% while absolving the wife of responsibility to 99% of it. That is both unjust and precisely the reason so many men are rejecting marriage altogether.

 

[Maverick]

All that said, as a larger principle apart from any personal strategic advice, I have a very hard time swallowing the idea that the marital covenant is something that a husband can be held to 100% while absolving the wife of responsibility to 99% of it. That is both unjust and precisely the reason so many men are rejecting marriage altogether.[/QUOTE]

I like very much and appreciate the entirety of your above post!

As far as the marital covenant aspect though... I believe that I will be held to account in all areas of my life. Especially in my marriage covenant. As a result of that, I am held to 100% of my part regardless of the behavior and attitude of my wife.

As far as absolving my wife, I will not do that and even if I wanted to (which I do not), I do not have the authority to do so. I also believe that God certainly does not absolve but allows for repentance and gives forgiveness, which is quite different from the idea absolution.

As far as men rejecting marriage altogether... Celibacy is an accepted form of being within the economy of God.

Look at the what the disciples of Christ said...

Look at what Paul has said...

I can't do it... I was born to be plural, but... It is ok for a man to see the troubles marriage brings and not enter into it. Just means more for us!