• 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.

Polyfidelity?

PolyPride

PolyPride

Member
I found the word polyfidelity over the internet while searching for one way to explain that polygamy is not adultery.

Someone on Wikipedia's website explained it as being, "Polyfidelity is a form of polyamorous group marriage wherein all members consider each other to be primary partners and agree to be sexual only with other members of this group."

I thought it was defined too loosely and it would go against the bible-based form of polygamy if it meant that all of the partners would have sexual relations with each other.

So here's my Christianized definition:
Polyfidelity: A form of polyamorous group marriage (POLYGAMY) wherein all members consider each other to be primary partners BUT the sexual relations is only between the husband and one of his wives, at a time.

I just thought I'd share the term which may become common for talks on how polygamy works. Anyone can let me know if the definition is okay or if you have another way to make it better.
 
I like how you're trying to make use of terms, but polyamourous group marriage ≠ Polygyny or polygamy as we discuss on this site. What they are talking about does not limit a family to one man or a woman to one husband.

We can just use the plain old term 'fidelity', its what we call for and the term 'polyfidelity' communicates something other than that.
 
I am not sure that a new term is useful in this case at all. The mere presence of a term does not automatically ensure it's applicability or in anyway prevent it's complete misapplication. Fidelity will look different depending on the role and relationship to which it is applied and what you are being faithful to live up to. In the case of marriage, Torah defines, we stay in the lines, being ever careful not to add to it or subtract from it. Traditions of men, of course, tend to do both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidelity

Sincerely,

Curtis
 
One of the oldest and best-known principles of propaganda is that he who controls the language controls the debate. This may be seen literally every day, by those with "eyes to see" simply by examining the way that words have been modified in order to then modify thinking (or eliminate it entirely).

For an obvious example, "gay" used to mean happy. Funny how the word would now come to mean ONLY something which the Bible calls "abomination".

A former president is remembered for single-handedly redefining the word "sex" for a whole generation -- by "not" having it.

And what is "hooking up"? (Or "stoned", or "bad", or "cool", or "hot"...)

Are you aware that in "law" (see a law dictionary) even the word "person" has been twisted? A "person" no longer needs to have a soul; by definitions, corporations and partnerships, and any other "fictitious legal entities" are called "persons". Is it any surprise that so-called "personhood amendments" (promoted by well-intentioned people to deal with evils like abortion) have ALREADY been derailed by the language alone? And does ANYONE remember what the word "infringed" really means? (Hint: not what it used to!)

Like it or not, "polyfidelity" is a direct AFFRONT to the Bible; the very word is "double-minded", since it implies "fidelity" is possible in situations where He says the word cannot apply.

Many of us here have learned to use the term polygyny in PREFERENCE to the term "polygamy" for EXACTLY these reasons: Not only does the preferred term correctly describe the fact that Biblical marriage is ONLY between one husband and one or more wives, but it also generally avoids the negative connotations asociated with other un-Biblical practices.

Words mean things -- and they often even mean more than most folks understand. We must not only learn to use them correctly, but identify and expose the propaganda techniques employed to use them to twist thought and language as well!
 
Thank you once more Mark for the brilliance. I felt wierd about this word too and the definitions offered. My husband's other wife is not my "partner". She is a member of my family and a sister in christ. I did not marry her. My marital fidelity is to my husband alone, although of course she is in my family. I feel like some people who accept polygyny sometimes can start to get ideas about it that are not biblical at all. Where in the bible does it say that Hannah married Peninah also?
 
Itsoktobesingle <img src=\"{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif\" alt=\";)\" title=\"Wink\" /> said:
I did not marry her. My marital fidelity is to my husband alone, although of course she is in my family. I feel like some people who accept polygyny sometimes can start to get ideas about it that are not biblical at all. Where in the bible does it say that Hannah married Peninah also?
Click to expand...

I am not contradicting you per say but remember Ecc. 7:18 "It is good that thou shouldest take hold of this; yea, also from this withdraw not thine hand: for he that feareth God shall come forth of them all."

The divine picture is Messiah and the assembly. This is the divine mystery around which marriage is patterned. John 17:20+ says, "20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me."

Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

There is more to the intercessory picture of biblical divine marriage than most are yet to realize. May the mystery be revealed.

All the scriptures that apply to how we are to relate to one another such as "selfish ambition", "wanting to be the greatest", etc. all fully apply to wives in the context of biblical marriage.

Sincerely,

Curtis
 
Hi Curtis,

The way I see these verses you mentioned is that they apply to the whole church. They do not specicfically make it so that I am also "one" with my husband's other wife. I am supposed to be as "one" with her spiritually as I am supposed to be with all other sisters in the church. Of course residing together and caring for her as part of my family makes it so I would be especially close to her but Jesus said "who are my mother and my brothers?" remember? That means that I love and care for her primarily because she is a fellow believer before she is a part of my family. That would be a secondary consideration. The "three fold cord" thing has been interpreted lots of ways-I see it as Husband, Wife and Holy Ghost (Lord). If anyone thinks I am off and that these interpretations are off biblically, I would like to know. These are my general notions gleaned from scripture by myself (not a great scholar!)
 
It has been said among the Hebrew that there are four levels of revelation...

P [Pshat] - literal, simple - BREADTH
R [Remez] - parable, allegory - LENGTH
D [Derasha] - seek, search - DEPTH
S [Sod] - inner, mystical - HEIGHT

The comments I made would definitely not far in the first category I agree.

Curtis
 
"he who controls the language controls the debate."

This is a thing that is difficult to beat, Ive found the need to develop a good vocabulary just so I can use terms that haven't been twisted when trying to express an idea. Do you find you often have to simply surrender terms that have been tainted or do you fight for them?

Either way, polyfidelity would be a great term if we got to it first, but we didn't, and it means something we can't agree with.
 
This is a thing that is difficult to beat, Ive found the need to develop a good vocabulary just so I can use terms that haven't been twisted when trying to express an idea. Do you find you often have to simply surrender terms that have been tainted or do you fight for them?
Click to expand...

That's a great question, Jair. (That last line from the "Serenity Prayer" about the "wisdom to know the difference..." somehow comes to mind. ;) )

People who control TV without question understand that power. Words like "gay" or "polygamy" are "too far gone to fight" IMO, at least in general. But that is why I prefer the term polygyny - it is technical enough not to be subject to mass-media manipulation (unless we become VERY successful, and thus a threat! ;) ) and unique enough that people will notice, and then question, the word. That makes it work.

In a limited 'theatre' (like a regular radio show, for example, with consistent, dedicated listeners) a host can establish a few such usages of words, and "make them stick", if he or she is consistent and persistent enough. Folks like Rush Limbaugh can force such a terminology change in a bigger arena if they are CAREFUL enough. Similarly, if we are persistent as well, we can encourage "proper" usage of some terms as well in our own environment. ("Patriarchy" is perhaps a good example there, in addition to polygyny. Because that word is SO specific to a Biblical usage, and so central to concepts discussed here, IF WE ARE CONSISTENT, the "stigma" which the media and popular culture would like to attach to the word can be rebutted and rejected.)

If there are other words that might likewise be useful to our mission, but subverted by the Adversary, the "trick", I will submit, might be to pick terms that folks would inherently recognize as "BIBLE-words" and not popular in everyday conversation. "Chastening", "helpmeet", "Levirate", and "putting away" are potential candidates, to give one the idea. Even doing a bit of "KingJames-ization" might be worthy technique, since a word like "chasteneth" or even "keepeth" is not going to be mistaken for mass-media phraseology!

When "push comes to shove", of course, I still like the idea of going to Hebrew. No one will mistake that the word is not something unusual, and then the opportunity to make the important distinctions between what THAT word means, and what someone might THINK the translation could mean, can be explained in detail.

Blessings,
Mark
 
I was wondering if anyone could give me some insight into how LDS/et al practitioners of polygamy view the relationship with all partners? In other words, are the wives considered not only married to the husband, but to one another? That seems to be the impression I have observed, but I could be off base on that.

In the Christian model, if we are to use the body of Christ as an example, the individual believer has a "servant" bond with the Savior, but a "community" bond with other believers. I would say that using that, each marriage relationship is a unique "servant" bond, but the wives would have a "community" bond.

I don't see anything in Scripture that directly states or even implies that a marriage-type relationship exists within the wives of the same hunband. If anyone knows of something I am missing, I am teachable on the subject.

Blessings,

Doc
 
Doc - while I have known some LDS folks over the years, I can't claim any first-hand knowledge of the Fundamentalist belief. I do understand from reading and 'other exposure; ;) that the 'celestial marriage' of Big Love is at least an honest attempt to reflect the understanding of some sects.


Speaking strictly for myself, I have come to conclude that the Hebrew word "echad" is a wonderful understanding of how a "house" can be "one", and how 'many' can be one (echad) in Him, just as He can be "Elohiym" (which is plural) and yet One.
 
Tlaloc said:
I like how you're trying to make use of terms, but polyamourous group marriage ≠ Polygyny or polygamy as we discuss on this site. What they are talking about does not limit a family to one man or a woman to one husband.

We can just use the plain old term 'fidelity', its what we call for and the term 'polyfidelity' communicates something other than that.
Click to expand...

I agree with you upon finding more information about the term from the group who coined the word.

http://www.kerista.com/ defined on their home page, towards the middle of the page

and defined and explained here...
http://www.kerista.com/poly.html

I knew the term was problematic to the biblical worldview, but I was thinking of altering the meaning to fit. I'm convinced though from posts here that there's probably no need for that. So maybe I'll try to come up with a new word ;)
 
I knew the term was problematic to the biblical worldview, but I was thinking of altering the meaning to fit. I'm convinced though...
Click to expand...

It dawned on me when I read your last post why some of us had stronger reservations, A3:

Have you ever noticed (if not, you probably will ;) ) how often people will automatically ASSUME things? If you even indicate that you are "interested in polygamy", the first question is usually something like, "are you a Mormon?"

"Polyfidelity", and "polyamory" in particular, already seem to have been co-opted by the "open love" movement.

The general problem I see with words which explicitly attempt to incorporate a WIDER application than the specific Biblical one (for example, the definition of polylgamy also includes the Biblically-prohibited polyandry) is that they inherently "dilute the message". It's a bit like saying that the term "acceptable sex" should include adultery (which is exactly what that site practices).

(I'm still lobbying for the term "Patriarchy", of course, since the correct Biblical understanding includes polygyny as a permitted option, and the word itself is ALREADY so UN-politically-correct that the anti-Bible crowd won't touch it anyway! :D )

Besides, the word has already been so demonized that, even among people who understand the Biblical worldview, the image of wife-beating domineering "husbands" who impose an iron-fisted "submission" and call it 'godly' has subverted so much of the popular culture that those who seek to cover our wives otherwise bear an additional burden: the negative propaganda, and even legal prejudice.

That awful stereotype will clearly have to be broken before the day when the "branch of YHVH will be beautiful and glorious" in Isaiah 4:1-2. The question is whether or not we can help the process along by good example, or only Apocalypse will eventually serve.
 
Angel,

Thanks, and good luck with working up new terms. We've been saying here how important that kind of thing is, and while polyfidelity has unfortunately already been abused beyond usefulness we do need terms to mean things that effectively communicate our point.

Have you thought of anything to replace the term sister-wife? My wife hates that term because her relationship with my potential other wives are very different than relationships with her sisters, and because it carries Mormon roots and she is not at all fond of the association. Co-wife on the other hand seems just too businesslike. Of the terms sister-wife is surely better, but I've been looking for another term and nothing seems to fit.
 
Tlaloc said:
Angel,

Thanks, and good luck with working up new terms. We've been saying here how important that kind of thing is, and while polyfidelity has unfortunately already been abused beyond usefulness we do need terms to mean things that effectively communicate our point.

Have you thought of anything to replace the term sister-wife? My wife hates that term because her relationship with my potential other wives are very different than relationships with her sisters, and because it carries Mormon roots and she is not at all fond of the association. Co-wife on the other hand seems just too businesslike. Of the terms sister-wife is surely better, but I've been looking for another term and nothing seems to fit.
Click to expand...

I can't think of anything at the moment but I know what you're saying. I've heard some refer to their wives as 1st wife, 2nd wife... but then that may sound too impersonal, as if your wife is some part of a formula or some robot. I honestly don't mind sister-wife but I'll try to read on if there are any alternative names.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top