• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

The Issue. The Source. The Problem.

Edward the Elder

Edward the Elder

Member
Male
I'm really no stranger here. I've found the men in this group to be well-seasoned and of forthright intentions, having studied the matter in depth as well, sincere and dedicated to those things that are right in the Sight of GOD. Although many of us may not agree on all things I do acknowledge that practically everyone in this forum means well.

I've been pondering the matter of plural marriage as exemplified in the Holy Bible for decades now, having studied the subject thoroughly, often finding myself perplexed and even amazed at times regarding the resistance and hostility aimed toward it.

I know that the matter has been discussed in this group numerous times, but I thought perhaps I might open a thread addressing the psychology, intent and spirit behind the opposition. I wonder at times if others might better comprehend what motivates this opposition that these might find more effective means of diffusing some of those hostilities, at least within church circles.

Perhaps we might examine issues such as why do they hate us so much?

Perhaps we might observe what the motivation is, or the spirit operating in this pathology. I have concluded that it is indeed a pathology.

Reason and understanding are the LORD's. GOD invites us to come and reason with Him. Although it is important to teach the truth it is equally important to teach the truth in love. There appears to be a phobia in operation concerning plural marriage as practiced by biblical example.

Let's talk about this.
 
My $0.02: Ignorance breeds fear, and fear protects that ignorance. Ignorance and fear seem to be the gateway and guard into many people's minds, not just on this issue, but any. Should we speak and they hear us, knowledge is able to get through and replace ignorance, but often the fear remains, which prevents understanding. This is spoken about in several places in the Bible. Jesus spoke about it in the parable of the sower, where knowledge is the seed and the mind is soil. I am not sure about the psychology of it all, but I agree it would be interesting if anyone has insight. I am convinced it is spiritual, so perhaps it is completely irrational and so there is no psychology to it. I'm fairly certain the provenance can be traced back to Gnosticism and/or romanticism, the mother of feminism, the mother of the alphabet people and other abominations.

On a related note, you might as well ask why a site called "Biblical Families" seems to be to the outside observer more like "Biblical Polygyny". I have sent a few people here who were looking for a congregation of believers without the taint of religion to gather with, only to have them turn away in mild annoyance because "this is all they talk about", or "polygyny is their religion." In other words, why are we so narrowly focused? Maybe that answer will be the converse to your question and will be easier to find since it exists within us. Just something that occurred to me. I don't have the answer.

Btw, I do think the subject of families is excellent to focus on as a topic of discussion because within God's design of the family we find multiple parallels that help us understand His nature, our purpose, His love, and our relationship to Him. I think there is value in it for the devil to distort this image so that we lose that knowledge and understanding. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."
 
I believe that the main reason that there is so much resistance is spiritual.
The enemy of our souls both hates and fears polygyny done right. The strength of a family against the kingdom of the enemy can be much stronger in a family in which more than just two are united against him.
Remember Yeshua’s prayer, that we all would be one. The family unit is the smallest group where that can be initiated. Two becoming one is a good start, but the threefold cord is much stronger, by multiples, than a two strand cord.

But it must be done right. Adding three strands together, side by side, has merely the strength of three times a single strand. But when they “become one” by being properly knitted together into one cord, the multiplication of strength is enormous.

Side note: If anyone runs across a comparison test of single strands vs braided , I would love to see it.
 
So far as the enemy of our souls Satan... he hates all that is good and true and seeks to reverse all that God has created. He always seeks to invert, to corrupt, to seed with leaven. Monogamy only is very much in line with his tactics.

So far as the American church goes... too many leaders are secretly Satan's minions. To many others serve the god of their belly and so anything that threatens to pocket book must be opposed, and things that cause feelbads in the womens hurt the pocketbook. American evangelical women are rebellious and head for the exits at any church with anything that remotely smacks of patriarchy.

I've heard multiple pastor's preach that things which cause women's feelbads are sinful.

The American church in general has lost the gospel and has embraced the feminist mindset of this world, even when they think they oppose it. Women worship is rife and no goddess are ever quarrelsome, would never allow another woman onto their turf.
 
These are all excellent replies and they give one much food for thought. I'm thinking much of the animosity toward plural marriage as per Biblical practice is generated through social conditioning. I recall having a discussion with a pastor about this in depth and eventually concluded that what he was suggesting amounted to the belief that what was good for the goose was good for the gander. I gave this some thought. In a way he was correct: When the goose benefits so does the gander. That said it isn't enough to over-simplify the means by which both benefit and how those benefits are administered. What with all the practices folks are engaging in today, the anti-gender/multiple gender/trans-gender/fluid-gender ideologies etc. one need not wonder that even so-called traditional monogamy is under attack. Despite all this its still pretty hard to argue with nature. Gender is a real thing and the roles associated with it cannot be ignored without reaping severe consequences.

I don't rule out the fact that the enemy is real and that there is a continuous war against the family waged all around the globe. Family values are in fact eroding. They're not just changing but deteriorating. We live in an age of confusion where equality and egalitarianism have been completely blown out of proportion. The irony is that these juggernauts of confusion would have us believe that they support such concepts as freedom and individuality. Clearly they do not. Albeit many of these also appear to be puppets in the devil's game. Methinks something far more sinister is the driving force behind it and indubitably has been at work for eons. 2 Peter 2:1-3 comes to mind in this regard:

1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

***

I'm seeing much of this happening today and I don't dispute that it was going on for centuries and centuries before my time. It's a grievous sore on humanity. One feels an overwhelming compulsion to lay the axe to the root of the problem. At the same time one desires to teach the truth in love. To manage this while secularist forces are adamantly opposed to biblical marriage, while society at large scorns it, shuns it, and attacks it, while those who regard themselves as full Bible believers are actively opposing those who do indeed embrace biblical marriage, is no easy feat. As I told my eldest daughter: There's a war going on and it has been going on for a long, long time.

​

 
There are many psychological reasons for opposing a biblical view of marriage. The biggest are people don't like to admit they are wrong (Pride) and they don't like to go against their tribe. For women, fear is a mighty motivator as well which in turn they instill in the men they rule over.

Being able to admit your previous position was wrong and adopting a new position based on new information is a rare quality. Add in the courage it takes in the face of the strong possibility that you will be rejected by your previous tribe for your new belief and you have probably the rarest of rare individuals. These individuals are the ones who upset the status quo. These individuals are the ones who need to be silenced. They are "Others" and as such should be hated.

On top of that, as @PeteR often points out, polygyny is thee issue that truly establishes patriarchy. Once it is admitted that men may take more than one wife, the arguments about whether or not egalitarians or complementarians are right are moot. You can't blur the lines between patriarchy and egalitarianism when men may take more than one wife. It is a fight to get women to wear head-coverings, because women know that by adopting the head covering, they lose some of the ambiguity they rely on to be rebellious. The head-covering is nothing compared to polygyny in that regard.

There is also the problem of men perverting the scriptures and giving certain practices a bad name. Think cult leaders taking child brides and mass suicide. These stories are powerful tools to incite hate where it does not belong. Such propaganda is used in physical war as much as intellectual and spiritual war.
 
Last edited:
On the more purely psychological, there is an interplay of many doing what they think is best for them. As stated earlier, ignorance is comfortable, and comfortable is the ultimate "good."

Men don't want to acknowledge an ideology that requires them to step up to the plate in competition, when they can win at OnlyFans every time. Why expend the effort of being a provider to women who won't respect them, when the women can just steal their lives. The alternative is unlimited cheap sex through porn, and liesure without responsibility.

The women think they benefit because they are getting all the things associated with having a good man; money, power, prestige, all without having to submit to the man those things come from. Why be sexy for your man so he doesn't leave you, when she could be sexy for 10,000 men and control her own fart-generated wealth? The risk of one guy leaving and subsequent destitution is massive compared to 1 leaving out of a football stadium of fans. While the low value women benefit in that all they have to do is manipulate a mirror-fogger into giving her half of everything he owns. (Gov is glad to help, because they take the other half through legal fees.)

The powers benefit by having a weaker populace, strung-out weak men who won't revolt, and if they do they have no power. Families won't bind together to overthrow, but rather in-fight endlessly over the meagre resources left.

The alternative seems worse than the status quo on almost every front, as long as those people never expand beyond ignorance. The system kinda works as long as ignorance abounds. So the men benefit from willfull ignorance, the women benefit from willfull ignorance, the gov benefits from willfull ignorance. So everyone stands to lose severely should awareness grow.
 
A lot of it is pure ignorance. At least at the common folk level. Most people sitting in the seats in churches do very little actual Bible study. Preacher X told me it was wrong, so I will go with that. As far as the actual church leaders, there is fear that if they teach this any other way than their denomination or church approves of, they will be out of a job.
 
This thread won't be helpful because it starts with wrong assumption shown in title. Key word: source.

Correct version is plural: sources.

It is our own bias as Christians to proclaim Satan as source. It is this full story? What about our own corruptibility as human beings?

What about political, monetary and legal system? Causes are many and they influence each others.

For example, what about influence of civil rights laws and sexual assault law in manlet creation? Civil rights means that no male-exclusive spaces exists and sexual assault means assumption of guilt before innocent and woman is always right.

So, in practice, men must invite harpies in and then walk around eggshells so that harpy doesn't send them to jail. And then in long term we wonder why men before were more masculine. Well, then wasn't jail penalty for having bigger balls.

In long term I believe only solution is love of all truth.
 
Last edited:
It's also a matter of trust, not trust in you or I, but trust in others.

For example, take Covid. If you were to try to convince someone that the vaccine isn't helpful, or any of the simpler aspects of that topic, you wouldn't just be trying to convince them that the vaccine isn't helpful (or whatever else). You're also telling them that the government is lying, that the medical system is lying, and a majority of people are falling for it. That means, if they are to accept what you're saying as truth, they have to abandon the truths that they've believed, and can no longer trust those they used to have faith in. Not only that, but those they trust will commonly label people like you with derogatory terms, and you're trying to convince them to take those derogatory terms onto themselves, terms that they've possibly used against others.

When it comes to polygyny, it's hundreds of years of teaching and tradition, it's a consistent narrative from their parents, elders, and pastors, it's the society around them, and it's how they read their Bibles.

That last part, especially, is key. If you're telling someone that they are wrong about how they understand their Bible, then you give them two options:
  1. They can no longer trust what they've learned from the Bible, and must accept that other things might be wrong about their understanding too
  2. You're wrong

Faced with all of that, it is much easier to decide that you are the one who is untrustworthy. Then it all makes sense: you really are {insert derogatory term of choice}. It's the simplest path. It is also the easiest path, but the fact that it is the simplest is what I want to draw attention to. The mind likes to take shortcuts; this is why fallacies exist. Fallacies can't prove anything, but they are useful tools to steer us in the right direction. In this case, "majority wins" is one of the shortcuts.

That all said, my own parents and siblings, who have much experience with thinking for themselves and disagreeing with church and the government, still have a very hard time with polygyny. I do not know why they cannot accept it. Maybe it's just a matter of time. Or maybe it's like what has already been suggested: polygyny is unambiguously patriarchal; there is no grey area. To accept it means that all of patriarchy has to be accepted, and that's a tall order for someone who hasn't yet accepted or even considered any of the previous stepping stones.
 
Fledgling said:
That last part, especially, is key. If you're telling someone that they are wrong about how they understand their Bible, then you give them two options:
  1. They can no longer trust what they've learned from the Bible, and must accept that other things might be wrong about their understanding too
  2. You're wrong
Click to expand...

This is why Christ was so hard on the leaders of that day. Most people are not theologians, leaders, or outside the box thinkers; nor should they be. Leaders thus are held to a higher standard.
 
Fledgling said:
  1. They can no longer trust what they've learned from the Bible, and must accept that other things might be wrong about their understanding too
  2. You're wrong
Click to expand...
This certainly speaks to the mind of the opposition. My view is that even these can trust what they have learned from the Bible if they are willing to be completely honest with themselves and the LORD. That takes work and often much diligent soul-searching. So yes, #2 makes for an easy option. There was once a time when I honestly thought Monogamy Only was the correct approach to marriage. Over time my doctrine started sprouting leaks and I found myself relentlessly patching up those leaks as best as I could before another leak would spring forth. Eventually, I had to take the entire matter before the LORD in prayer and examine myself. My doctrine could not hold water. I concluded that it might be fine for some, but it wasn't for me. I still believe plural marriage isn't for everyone. Scripture supports this view.

It wasn't until much later, when I was approached by a staunch Bible believing daughter of a Baptist deacon that I was moved to reconsider my position. She challenged me to show her in Scripture where her feelings for me were wrong. I couldn't. This led to a committed, in-depth Bible study. 18 months later we married. There is so much more to this story.

There are so many brilliant responses to this thread and I would like to take my time with them and digest them. Clearly much thought has gone into these responses and I appreciate it. What MemeFan stated about sources is worthy of consideration. Ultimately, we should all know what the "source" is. The source is rooted in falsehood. The source is the father of all lies. Alas, it would seem that the lies circulating around marriage are endless. They just keep on coming. I would state without reservation that things are not always what they seem. Surely there is an end to these falsehoods.

I am reminded of something one of my seniors stated before he passed: He told me women are monogamous by nature and men are polygamous. There's some truth there that can be extrapolated. I realize that there might well be some exceptions to this, but as a young man once pointed out to me, the exception only proves the rule.

Ignorance is sometimes necessary for some to keep their confidence — especially when their confidence is built upon a shaky foundation. Sadly, this sort of confidence is misdirected and it's only a matter of time before the foundation collapses and confidence vaporizes. I can't make an argument for ignorance that is healthy and beneficial for biblical marriage.
 
Edward the Elder said:
I am reminded of something one of my seniors stated before he passed: He told me women are monogamous by nature and men are polygamous. There's some truth there that can be extrapolated. I realize that there might well be some exceptions to this, but as a young man once pointed out to me, the exception only proves the rule.
Click to expand...

Is this by God's design? Did God create man with the desire for more than one woman? Is that only for some men? Are some men content with one woman, or are they just suppressing what they really want. Or have they been fooled by society that they must only have one wife?

This is interesting, and I would be interested in fleshing this out a little more.

It seems most women can't understand how a man could want another woman besides her and expect him to be her only man. After all, she's not looking for another husband (unless she's cheating/committing adultery of course).

Why does the woman expect and demand that her husband suppress any desire for another woman. I know, I know, western culture demanded that she have a fairy tale monogamous marriage. But is there more to this.

Did God create men and women differently as far as desire for marriage partners?
 
NBTX11 said:
Did God create men and women differently as far as desire for marriage partners?
Click to expand...
It is built into the system, not designed separately.
Think about it, women can naturally only have a single leader.
But that leader can lead multiple women.
Ergo, men have the opportunity for polygyny, whilst women can only operate monogamously.

Notice that I specified that men have the opportunity for polygyny. I never claimed that they are intrinsically made for it. Some men don’t even qualify for monogamy.
 
steve said:
It is built into the system, not designed separately.
Think about it, women can naturally only have a single leader.
But that leader can lead multiple women.
Ergo, men have the opportunity for polygyny, whilst women can only operate monogamously.

Notice that I specified that men have the opportunity for polygyny. I never claimed that they are intrinsically made for it. Some men don’t even qualify for monogamy.
Click to expand...
Good answer and kind of what I was looking for. My belief is that God created woman to be under man. So therefore, a woman can't have more than one master. However a man can have more than one woman, because he does not submit to woman.

I was just wondering if there was anything God intrinsically created in man to desire multiple women to love, provide, and care for.
 
NBTX11 said:
My belief is that God created woman to be under man. So therefore, a woman can't have more than one master. However a man can have more than one woman, because he does not submit to woman.
Click to expand...
Spot on.
NBTX11 said:
I was just wondering if there was anything God intrinsically created in man to desire multiple women to love, provide, and care for.
Click to expand...
If a man has the desire to love, provide, and care for a woman, would it really require extra design for the man to feel like adding another?
What in man’s nature makes him no longer attracted to adding to his family? Other than the fact that it has been brainwashed into him since he was a toddler.

When a woman has a child, they don’t often feel that other children would be superfluous.
 
steve said:
Spot on.

If a man has the desire to love, provide, and care for a woman, would it really require extra design for the man to feel like adding another?
What in man’s nature makes him no longer attracted to adding to his family? Other than the fact that it has been brainwashed into him since he was a toddler.

When a woman has a child, they don’t often feel that other children would be superfluous.
Click to expand...
Well, woman doesn't desire another man, does she? So apparently there is some difference there. Unless we are comparing a woman's desire to have more children to a man's desire to have more wives.
 
NBTX11 said:
Well, woman doesn't desire another man, does she? So apparently there is some difference there.
Click to expand...
It’s in the design, why would a woman want two leaders?
NBTX11 said:
Unless we are comparing a woman's desire to have more children to a man's desire to have more wives.
Click to expand...
I think that there is some similarity, comparing to the number of husbands would be similar to asking if children wanted more than one mother.
Although in plural families they do, but there isn’t the desire for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top