• 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.

Polygamy for economic survival

S

Shadowjak's Dancer

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
Okay, I know this is going to sound madly utilitarian as far as marriage and people are concerned, but I've been thinking about pm as regards economics. Now, it seems to me that there was a time in the USA when a single income family could manage well enough, but as time marched on double income homes became the standard. These days, however, it seems like there are an awful lot of folks out there struggling to get by on just two incomes.
I've been doing the mathematics, and realizing how prosperous a home with three or four incomes could be... and not just due to combined salaries, but buying power for assets (business/personal), ability to pay down the principle on home/car loans, etc.

It may sound cold of me to say, but polygamy seems like a wise business move.

Any thoughts?
 
Yes I agree with your theoretical concept.

However if its a case of multiple wives working as employees, I feel it undermines male headship. Those women have an external authority over them, that gives them money if they perform as required.

Also if they are working in outside jobs, the question is why should they hand over their earned money to the man?

By way of contrast, I think a polygamous family unit with a family run business is an extremely strong economic, patriarchal, traditional and biblical concept.

ylop
 
My brain assumed a family business model for the framework, such as, for example: independent trucking company running a couple of trucks, changing out spouses as drivers with one/two spouse(s) at home scheduling loads and tending house/kids.
That way nobody gets endlessly cooped at the house, everyone gets paid to travel, etc.

It would reduce full-family Shabbats, however... unless one were to plan for all to be home Friday evening to Sat for their legally mandatory weekend break.
 
I think you need a family business model where you are adequately providing for the wives without their input; however additional wives have the option to work in the business, and it is a blessing to all when they do; however they do not have to.

Making the family dependent on the wives' income reduces your headship.
 
I agree that there are economic benefits but ylop has an excellent point, headship must come first. Of course that Proverbs 31 woman was quite the entrepreneur and she had praised heaped on her, but again she didn't have an alternate male authority. Nothing wrong with wives earning money, even lots of it, but are they submitted?
 
Undermining headship? I see the merit of your view, but at the same time I would hold that such a construct which would enable a family to incorporate a single mom with kids into the home would be better than her having to go it alone with work, rent, school, food, etc. concerns for how she will manage with however many children she already has.
Furthermore, if such a family company upholds the headship of the husband, that doesn't necessarily imply a model where the wives are not allowed to come fully into their own capabilities as businesswomen. After all, it would be a poor leader who would leave his spouses entirely unprepared to manage things as long as they needed to in the case of his unexpected death. Such a tragedy would be hard enough to deal with even without economic disaster on top of it.
 
Your theoretical construct is fine, yes of course it is better for the single mother to be part of the family.

However I am thinking in practical terms. As head of the household, the husband would normally be the provider of economic resources. If the husband is not the provider, I ask the question, why is the woman there? This is a generalisation, but the reality is that if the man has no economic resources, the woman will leave for another man who will provide for her and her children.

Have an economic team effort sure, but I don't think that simply providing a family structure for a single mother is enough. You might be a stop gap, but she will leave when a better option comes up, ie a man who wants just her, and will provide for her.
 
16 She goes to inspect a field and buys it;
with her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17 She is energetic and strong,
a hard worker.
18 She makes sure her dealings are profitable;
her lamp burns late into the night.
19 Her hands are busy spinning thread,
her fingers twisting fiber.
20 She extends a helping hand to the poor
and opens her arms to the needy.
21 She has no fear of winter for her household,
for everyone has warm[c] clothes.
22 She makes her own bedspreads.
She dresses in fine linen and purple gowns.
23 Her husband is well known at the city gates,
where he sits with the other civic leaders.
24 She makes belted linen garments
and sashes to sell to the merchants.

From proverbs 31.

My wife is a stay at home mom who home-schools our children. At times she has worked outside the home. I've always been the primary breadwinner, but I don't think that is necessary to maintain spiritual headship. I don't believe the question should be "why should they hand over their earned money to the man?". Why wouldn't she contribute her earnings to the family? "My" paycheck isn't "mine". It belongs to God and my family. When my wife worked outside the home our money always went into a common pool and was allocated where it needed to go.
 
jacobhaivri said:
Okay, I know this is going to sound madly utilitarian as far as marriage and people are concerned, but I've been thinking about pm as regards economics. Now, it seems to me that there was a time in the USA when a single income family could manage well enough, but as time marched on double income homes became the standard. These days, however, it seems like there are an awful lot of folks out there struggling to get by on just two incomes.
I've been doing the mathematics, and realizing how prosperous a home with three or four incomes could be... and not just due to combined salaries, but buying power for assets (business/personal), ability to pay down the principle on home/car loans, etc.

It may sound cold of me to say, but polygamy seems like a wise business move.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I do see our society heading into this direction. From a strictly financial and economic standpoint....having multiple incomes in a home would make it alot easier on everyone. As a single woman supporting myself i will tell you i dont have no where near the financial breathing room that a married couple may have or an unmarried couple just living together. It has made me a very frugal and shrewd buyer....i only buy what is on sale and stock up on necessities. I dont spend money on clothing, shoes, furniture, etc unless i absolutely have to. I have worn holes in my work shoes before i would replace them.

I will also tell you from my past experience talking to families considering poly that most always assume the new wife will work. For one i dont have children so they reason there is no reason for me to sit at home. Secondly, most families i have spoken to have said they need the extra income. Some have out right figured out a monthly amount i would have to pay to cover my living expenses (some have also wanted me to pay their bills too on top of it). A few families have went as far to even tell me that the extra income was a reason they wanted to become polygamous. Over the past 6 or so years that i have been searching i have found more and more lower income families now wanting to practice polygamy. I have always felt it made better economic sense. But i refuse to join a family that has no spiritual understanding of biblical plural marriage or background.

As for some of the later comments about a family business...that may work for a few instances but not for the majority of people. I do see multiple wives working to help support the family, whether it be full or part time work, career oriented or just min wage jobs. I have always said that i didnt mind helping to support the family i join and it would depend also on the makeup and needs of said family.
 
My understanding of biblical headship would be that which is explicitly approved by the husband will be honored by God as long as its not against His righteousness. Therefore a husband that entrusted his wife with accounting or some other great responsibility can give her great leeway in doing that job. But in the end she always reports back to him.
It was through the model shown in Prov. The husband and wife had established an enterprise where she could manage it and he could sit by the gates as an elder and politic for the good of those around him. And as his wife was working under his approval all things were in order under God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A&J
UntoldGlory said:
My wife is a stay at home mom who home-schools our children. At times she has worked outside the home. I've always been the primary breadwinner, but I don't think that is necessary to maintain spiritual headship. I don't believe the question should be "why should they hand over their earned money to the man?". Why wouldn't she contribute her earnings to the family? "My" paycheck isn't "mine". It belongs to God and my family. When my wife worked outside the home our money always went into a common pool and was allocated where it needed to go.
Click to expand...

Yes that is all good and fine and biblical.

My issue is this: people change. heart are fickle. motivations wane. the hour of need can be temporary. and in general, woman pursue the men in their scope that offer the most economic resources.

here is an example from my life.

I employ people.

They work for me because they need money.

They are sweet as pie and compliant at the time of job application.

Once they are working for me, I need to continue to work at making my employment an attractive offer, matching their changing life circumstances.

if I don't, they resign. and are often sour to me, not sweet at that point in time.

the employees most likely to leave are the good ones, the productive ones, the ones that actually generate income rather than being a cost. those are the employees I have to be super nice to and provide a good working environment.
 
Yar!

And I must add that while a Proverbs 31 wife is a boon and a blessing and could make even a lazy man monetarily solvent *cough*Imightknowaboutthat*cough*

buuuuuuut....

Not all wives are gonna be like that! And what's more... it's not really their deal to HAVE to work. Their curse is to have agonizing childbirth and to be ruled over by some severely second rate supervisors. As far as work goes, the man is 'sposed to work. That's our curse.

As far as economic survival goes: That is the part we aren't even supposed to worry about. What we shall eat drink and wear: those are things the Father knows we have need of. Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you, whether or not you have a stable of profitable women considering fields and buying them and whatnot.

I say this, of course, as a man whose wife was clearly stamped from the P31 template and whose success owes much to her ministrations. I did not know this about her when we married. I actually thought that she would ruin me if given the chance, so for the first years of our marriage her name wasn't even on the bank account.

I suspect however that ulimately reliance upon female diligence will fail you, if your reliance upon providence and obedience is not given the primacy. And if the kingdom of God and His righteousness is indeed your first priority, you will have no special need for female diligence. If God will share his glory with no man, it is certain that neither will He share His glory (as provider in this case) with a group of women. Even if they are awesome women, each one of them hand picked by the Creator for His servants.

*edited because I make elementary mistakes that used to irritate me about other people.
 
Lots of stuff to respond to there. I'm short on time so I'll keep it brief.

Starlit - I once again find myself grieving for the trials you've had in your search.

Yoder - Yes, I agree that it is the wife working under the approval and headship of the Husband, who is in turn submitted to God

Ylop - Man, I always feel for you, it always seems like you're in pain. As far as your response, well, I'd hope that adding a wife would be a whole different story than adding an employee, but it does speak well of long courtships. Need time to really get to know each other and be sure everyone is in it for the long haul.

Slumber - Good point, we're the ones charged to toil to produce! If a wife is willing and able to work outside the home, that's bonus I guess! And you're 100% correct, it may be our curse to toil, but it is not our "worry". Trust in the Lord for all our needs!
 
Fascinating thoughts.

I would hope that anyone's marriage wouldn't be for purely financial reasons, certainly. Much more than financial situations alone, however, having a great team of spouses united to build a family together must surely have many benefits... multiple perspectives, personal strengths, creative talents, etc. Each person has their own unique God-fashioned value and talents.

I cannot say I necessarily endorse long or short courtships. I believe that it can depend on circumstances. My wife and I were friends for quite awhile, but our technical courtship was very short. I've heard various stories about God ordained spouses, some I find more questionable, and others more trustworthy... I wonder how many long courtships in the PM world are more about a couple who is toying with the idea, but aren't necessarily ready to really live a PM lifestyle, and are actually just stringing someone else along for the ride. Or even a husband who is chatting up women online without first informing/discussing with the first wife.

I can say that I think people should be careful and sure. Careful not to jump into anything before being ready, and especially careful not to burn others. No kind of marriage covenant should be taken lightly, nor should pm families get a reputation for being anything but good homes/families for people.
 
I'm just going to nitpick here.
Slumberfreeze said:
Their curse is to have agonizing childbirth and to be ruled over by some severely second rate supervisors. As far as work goes, the man is 'sposed to work. That's our curse.
Click to expand...
Not child birth, but child bearing. As a woman who's had 5 children I can tell you that carrying a child for 9 months is rather difficult, tiring, and at times down right painful (ever had a foot stuck under your ribs? No? How about heartburn so bad that you can't sleep because stomach acid keeps running out your nose?)
I love my kids, and I'd do it all again, but it's the curse of the woman that pregnancy will be hard along with labour.
I'd also call that work ha ha!

Ok, I'll leave you lot to keep chatting about economics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yan
Oh sure Jacob, I'm not saying all courtships should be long, especially when there is a strong pre-existing friendship. I mean, heck, I met my wife one December and we were married that Summer, and 90+% of that time we were over 3,000 miles apart. That was 15 years ago!

I'm just saying that caution is advised, especially when there are more hearts on the line. Risking my own heart is one thing, risking the hearts of my wife and children is a whole different thing, as a new wife doesn't just have to get along with me, but all of them as well!
 
FH2; There are few interactions that I have with women that I do not find reason to thank God that I am not one. This has proved no exception. May the Lord mightily bless you for patiently enduring a snootfull of stomach acid to bring forth your children, who I hope appreciate you in a new way every day.

Thank you for injecting that lovely visual into this discussion on household economics. It was loltastic.

But on the curse being about bearing and not birth, you bring up an often overlooked point. The curse mentions sorrow for the pregnancy (herown) as well as the birthing process (yalad). Unfortunately, my attempts to delve into the original language are frustrated right at this point, because Hebrew is so alien to me that I can glean nothing further. The King James renders it : I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

The implication is that it starts with an unspecified first sorrow to be multiplied, but other translations have it as "Mulitiply your pain IN childbearing". Which is it? I HAVE NO IDEA. Alas, I was too lazy to complete even a year of greek, and it is certain I am too lazy to significantly learn any hebrew.
 
Slumberfreeze said:
Alas, I was too lazy to complete even a year of greek, and it is certain I am too lazy to significantly learn any hebrew.
Click to expand...

I have some background in Koine Greek and a smidgen in Hebrew. The one thing I can tell you for certain about Genesis 3:16-17 is that God wasn't declaring anything nice for either gender. Apparently Chrome doesn't have an appropriate font for me to break the Hebrew script down word for word as I've done in the past so I'll have to just give an explanation in English. I'll use the KJV as my basis since that one is extremely popular.

Moses said:
Gen 3:16 KJV (Translated from the Hebrew to King James English)
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Click to expand...

The first clause of the curse on women appears to pertain to just about everything associated with pregnancy, childbirth, child rearing, etc. Strong's H3205 - yalad is commonly translated in most English Bibles as "begat", "gave birth to", etc. In other Hebrew writings however it is also used to refer to the child-rearing process. So apparently the woman's troubles do not stop when the baby takes his first breath. That goes along with what we see in the real world as well. Nursing can be hard on a woman's body depending on her state of health. Also I remember my mom talking about the agony of seeing something on the news that might endanger her 19 year old sailor of a son as well. So the agonies don't seem to stop with just child-birth.

The second clause of the curse on women shows some interesting verb structure which is not always communicated by pastors. Luckily for us the KJV is accurately translated here so we can see the English version of that verb structure.

Moses said:
Gen 3:16 KJV (Translated from the Hebrew to King James English) quoted in part
...thy desire shall be to thy husband...
Click to expand...

Given the verb structure in this sentence is appears to be a command not a statement. It seems to be an imperative, as the KJV translators inscribed it. That means, among other things, that lesbians are out of luck because they are commanded to desire a husband whether they do or not and going against that is apparently a sin. That fits with the concept of a curse. A curse is not supposed to be something that a person enjoys doing. So if a woman enjoys being with a man she is apparently escaping part of the curse, although I doubt that she will escape from experiencing at least some of the many strenuous aspects of having a husband. Women seem to be commanded to pursue the idea of having a husband whether they want to or not.

Moses said:
Gen 3:16 KJV (Translated from the Hebrew to King James English) quoted in part
...he shall rule over thee.
Click to expand...

This clause is interesting in that it has a very different verb structure than the similar commands in the New Testament. In the New Testament the woman is what we would call the subject of the sentence. She is the one performing the action. The verbiage is "wives submit yourselves to your husbands" so the wives are the ones doing the action not the husband.

Here the husband is "ruling over" (KJV) the wife rather than her submitting to him.

My take on this is that it is an analogy to the forgiveness of Christ. Without the forgiveness of Christ we would be justly punished for our disobedience and we would all go to Hell for our sins. With the forgiveness of Christ we can enter Heaven as long as we do our best because we are forgiven for our failures. Since the Christ/church covenant is compared to the marriage covenant in so many places in the Bible I take this to be another one of those analogies. Prior to the death and resurrection of Christ the woman was beaten into submission by her husband. After the death and resurrection of Christ she is forgiven for her disobedience as long as she is trying rather than openly rebelling by such methods as willful adultery.

That's my take on it anyway. I'm sure that there are others who would disagree.
 
So interestingly enough I see this very thing happening next door. They may or may not be polygamous but it goes something like this.

We see a struggling family that needs a better place to rent. We have a rental and want to help. So the 2 parents with a 10 month old baby move in next door. Unfortunately they are having to stretch to make payments.... then his children from a previous marriage all want to move back in with him. So now couple with 5 children, and the court is still taking his child support and all of the state benefits that they get for the children are given to the first wife. Paperwork being the hassle that it is I noticed all the sudden that now the ex is living with them too, and guess what? This is the first month that they haven't asked for food, payed their rent on time, and their power as well! So Jacob. I have seen what you are thinking :)

I would point out that they are living better even though he is the only one working. Why? Now there aren't 2 rentals, 2 power bills, etc.... things have been streamlined and they actually seem to be doing well. The kids are happier too. Now they have both parents and an extra Mom figure. It is working!
 
Wesley: Why hello there, new resource. I am glad to have met you. I need just that depth of insight quite a bit and can never seem to find it. I'm always amazed at how some people can wring so much meaning out of such small verses. I'm always given to believing it was there to find, but like a said, hebrew is my achilles... Thank you for your response!

As far as some of the conclusions you've drawn; I can't really find any substantial reason to disagree off the top of my head. It's worth meditating on.

Elisheba: How strange and wonderful. While I cannot currently stomach poly as strictly economic strategy, I welcome it gladly in preference to serial monogamy. The one woman after another gambit (favored by my family as far back as can be reckoned by any living members) is senselessly destructive money-wise and emotion-wise. To see a fractured family at least appear to be drawing back together warms my blood pumping muscle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top