-
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 biblical model for adding wives, is *NOT* about equality-MEN only
- Thread starter IshChayil
- Start date
Precisely.
There is positive, Godly control of a wife (leading, training in righteousness), and there is negative, unGodly control (control for the sake of control, or for the pleasure of a man). There are plenty of websites promoting the second form as good (MGTOW etc). It is very important to draw a distinction between the two, NOT just because women will be reading this, but mainly in order to teach men to treat their wives correctly. I do not want to unintentionally encourage men to mistreat their wives, but rather want to teach them to lead and train their wives in righteousness.
It is possible to read @IshChayil's posts as promoting the second, worldly form of control, and I am sure this is not his intention at all but comes purely from the way the posts have been phrased. To avoid misunderstandings I am trying to tease out the difference here and clarify the point. The word "manipulation" is a handy term to use for negative control, but words are just words. I don't think we're fundamentally disagreeing, I think language is just getting in the way.
The occasional response from women helps us to gauge what our posts mean to the reader, which may be different to what we intended, so we can then clarify any misunderstandings that may have resulted from the words that we used to frame our ideas. This will then result in clearer advice to men.
This is turning into a great teaching opp along the lines of @mystic's point about being men and women, and not just 'adults'.
A word about words: "Manipulate" is/was not an inherently negative word, but it has become so through modern usage and emotional loading. Very similar to how the word "discriminate" has been damaged. Manipulating (working dexterously with your hands) and discriminating (distinguishing accurately, discerning) are skills we should want to have, right?
But that's not usually the way those words are used today, right?
Quick recap:
IC put some thoughts out that he qualified up front as not being as well-articulated as he would have liked.
FH2 was a little offended (it's okay to admit that—stick with me) and said so.
IC was a little offended by the offense (see parenthetical above) and said so.
FH picked up FH2's word 'manipulate' and used it several times to unpack his ideas. Totally understandable.
IC's thoughts rubbed FH2 the wrong way. That's totally okay. Where we're struggling is with how to communicate about that.
Aaaand I have to run out the door to get to a gig.
More later....
A word about words: "Manipulate" is/was not an inherently negative word, but it has become so through modern usage and emotional loading. Very similar to how the word "discriminate" has been damaged. Manipulating (working dexterously with your hands) and discriminating (distinguishing accurately, discerning) are skills we should want to have, right?
But that's not usually the way those words are used today, right?
Quick recap:
IC put some thoughts out that he qualified up front as not being as well-articulated as he would have liked.
FH2 was a little offended (it's okay to admit that—stick with me) and said so.
IC was a little offended by the offense (see parenthetical above) and said so.
FH picked up FH2's word 'manipulate' and used it several times to unpack his ideas. Totally understandable.
IC's thoughts rubbed FH2 the wrong way. That's totally okay. Where we're struggling is with how to communicate about that.
Aaaand I have to run out the door to get to a gig.
More later....
Just for clarity's sake I am going to point out that there are those of us who take literally the concept that a wife is to be completely submitted to her husband and so from her perspective there is no right way or wrong way for her to be treated. I don't want to go back there here (feel free to bump the submission threads if you want to go back down that rabbit hole).
My point is that there are those who don't necessarily accept the whole premise.
My point is that there are those who don't necessarily accept the whole premise.
I understand the point you're making Zec, but from a man's perspective there is a right way and a wrong way to treat a wife, which comes back to love. The primary purpose of this thread, as I see it, is to discuss how men should treat their wives in order to prepare for and function successfully in plural marriage. We're not talking about a wife's requirement to submit to her husband even if he is in error, but rather about how a husband may avoid being in error when he asks his wife to submit to him. So it is off-topic, no need to go down that rabbit hole - but it is a related issue to keep at the back of your mind.
when it's followed by "nonsense" as a qualifier, it beomes crystal clear the intent. As in.. @FollowingHim2 's
"Women need security not manipulative nonsense" kinda hard to spin that one as constructively positive no matter how the word was used in the 1800s.
Just because an opinion is not ones own doesnt make it "manipulative nonsense" (in a good way...spin spin spin)
it's ok to disagree nicely
I understand better now why there needs to be the men's only area...rookie mistake on my part.
I was trying to post a little piece of wisdom I think is important and can actually help people. There are lot's of theorizers here but not many have lived this life yet. Those in the trenches aren't just stupid for needing to figure things out and wanting to protect others from pitfalls which are not obvious. There aren't a plethera of mentors with time available on every corner. So this kind of discussion needs to exist, not be snuffed out right?
As the op, I vote we move the thread to the men's area where I should have posted it to start with.
Last edited:
Get over it Ish. It was a couple of words from an emotional woman. I don't think anyone else is scared of her, even I'm not and I'm the only one within reach of her rolling pin. If she gets dangerous I'll let you know. 
I will always call spin spin when i see it. Training growing up in Usa with liberal media...Get over it Ish. It was a couple of words from an emotional woman. I don't think anyone else is scared of her, even I'm not and I'm the only one within reach of her rolling pin. If she gets dangerous I'll let you know.
Judging by the amount of private support I get in private messages I get here from guys who dont wanna stick their necks out publicly here on forums...You're wrong.
Move the thread already, you can ask your wife's forgiveness later
I'm the op anyway...
Last edited:
@andrew, I think this is a ridiculous storm in a teacup and needs no action. For the record, Sarah doesn't care if I leave it here or move it, but her opinion is irrelevant anyway - I personally can't see any reason to prevent other women from responding, so am personally choosing to leave it here. However, as @IshChayil will perceive this as me "protecting my wife", I am hereby handing this thread over to you, please move or leave it as you see fit.
Let's have this as the last comment on this whole silly matter and get back to discussing the actual topic.
Let's have this as the last comment on this whole silly matter and get back to discussing the actual topic.
I just imagined reducing her raiment, and found I quite liked the idea.
Last edited:
To get back on-track: If you have multiple wives, you don't need to reduce their raiment equally. You can leave one clothed while you strip the other. I thought I had better clarify that just in case anyone has spent years of weird embarrassment thinking that scripture required something else.
I'm going to start by picking up where I left off Sunday (been a little hectic here...) and then get to a ruling on the forum moderation.
I'm still high from @mystic's point about being men and women. I thought that was brilliant. We of all people should acknowledge the difference, and any talk of being "grownups" or "adults" should be countered with the question, "Do you mean a male adult or a female adult"? While individual exceptions to general rules can always be identified (duh...), statistically we are just different, and we have to account for that in our interactions. [NB - If you didn't see the most recent newsletter, it would be pertinent to take a look at it now at this link.]
What follows is based on my personal strategy for male/female interactions, which I have found effective for me. If you don't think it will help you, do something else. By the time I've finished I expect to offend everybody, but I hope once we look at it together from all sides it will all make sense.
I disagree with @IshChayil's proposition that men should 'hold something back' because reasons. But I'm not going to argue with him about it, and I'm not offended it by it. It's a strategy; maybe it will work for him. And he practically bent over backward qualifying his statements and positioning them as a speculation for further discussion (not saying it as well as he could, 4:00am where he was, might be better in a mens-only forum, asking for help from other guys to unpack the idea, etc.). So he deliberately opened the door for debate and discussion.
@FollowingHim2's response was, shall we say, a bit peremptory. A bit judgmental, too, in the technical sense of 'rendering a judgment' about what IC had said. That didn't offend me, (a) because she wasn't responding to me, so easy out, and (b) because I don't expect women to communicate the same way men do, and I automatically translate everything to manspeak (see note below). So what I 'heard' was "Careful, IC, because what you're suggesting sounds like it's headed in the direction of some kind of weird control/domination thing, and that makes me feel threatened personally as well as concerned for what other people, particularly women, will think reading this later. Where are you headed with this?" Call it a 'shot across the bow', delivered woman-style.
Coming from a man, however, them's fightin words. A guy who stands up in front of the room and calls what the last guy said "manipulative nonsense" (or just "nonsense", really--we could probably live with "manipulative") is throwing down a challenge, even if it's done indirectly (lady style) as in the sense of "if what you just said means what I think it means, it's manipulative nonsense". A statement like that has plausible deniability ("I wasn't insulting you personally, I was just saying "if"...), but it still makes an insulting point.
So IC understandably was insulted by what FH2 said, and took offense. I get it. As a performing artist I am acutely aware of the vulnerability of "putting yourself out there" and then waiting for responses, positive or negative. And the more risky or edgy (if we're talking about art) or speculative or politically incorrect (if we're talking about ideas), the more vulnerable. So now IC and FH2 are both having a bad experience here, for different but related reasons. FH2 feels threatened by IC's speculations, and IC feels shot down by FH2's critique. Trouble ensues.
Meanwhile, @FollowingHim's job as moderator is potentially compromised by the fact that his bride is one of the parties to the conflict, and he properly recuses himself from adjudicating it to avoid even the appearance of partiality. So here we are.
Samuel, leave the thread where it is. I have no essential problem with IC's OP, and think his points are worth discussing further if we can move on. And the relatively mild kerfuffle between FH2 and IC is a good illustration of a fairly common situation in male/female communication dynamics that's also worth examining. The thread stays.
IshChayil, my personal opinion is that the private fora are best suited to matters that are deeply personal, and for topics of general interest it is useful to get the ladies' perspectives as we go, even if it can get a little awkward sometimes. That just gives us moments such as this to examine the ways we relate to each other across the gender divide and hopefully improve our communication. I respect your choices, however, regarding how and in what context you want to share speculative or tentative thoughts going forward, and recommend that you give some prayerful consideration to whether to continue with this particular topic in this thread or open a new thread in the men-only forum and then do as you see fit. Your call.
Finally, I commend Samuel for doing a yeoman job of balancing the equities. He did a subtle job of showing that he is Sarah's husband and he will defend her if necessary (I would expect any husband to do the same), but ultimately he did an unimpeachable job of maintaining impartiality as demonstrated ultimately by his recusing himself altogether.
-------
Note (see ¶5 above): I don't really "translate". It's more like I'm fluent in womanspeak, so I can think in womanspeak and understand it without translation. Anyone fluent in multiple languages knows what I'm talking about. Now women may laugh at the idea that I can understand women or that any man can understand women, but whether I do or don't or whether anyone (including myself) can know whether I do or don't isn't the practical problem. As a good scientist, I am looking for theories that accurately predict future results in repeatable tests, and I have found that I get along pretty well thinking the way I think. It's a practical solution that works for me, whether it meets anyone else's abstract requirements or not. And in any event, I think anyone who treats manspeak and womanspeak as two different languages and cultures is going to be steps ahead of anyone who wastes time trying to conform the two to one standard.
I'm still high from @mystic's point about being men and women. I thought that was brilliant. We of all people should acknowledge the difference, and any talk of being "grownups" or "adults" should be countered with the question, "Do you mean a male adult or a female adult"? While individual exceptions to general rules can always be identified (duh...), statistically we are just different, and we have to account for that in our interactions. [NB - If you didn't see the most recent newsletter, it would be pertinent to take a look at it now at this link.]
What follows is based on my personal strategy for male/female interactions, which I have found effective for me. If you don't think it will help you, do something else. By the time I've finished I expect to offend everybody, but I hope once we look at it together from all sides it will all make sense.
I disagree with @IshChayil's proposition that men should 'hold something back' because reasons. But I'm not going to argue with him about it, and I'm not offended it by it. It's a strategy; maybe it will work for him. And he practically bent over backward qualifying his statements and positioning them as a speculation for further discussion (not saying it as well as he could, 4:00am where he was, might be better in a mens-only forum, asking for help from other guys to unpack the idea, etc.). So he deliberately opened the door for debate and discussion.
@FollowingHim2's response was, shall we say, a bit peremptory. A bit judgmental, too, in the technical sense of 'rendering a judgment' about what IC had said. That didn't offend me, (a) because she wasn't responding to me, so easy out, and (b) because I don't expect women to communicate the same way men do, and I automatically translate everything to manspeak (see note below). So what I 'heard' was "Careful, IC, because what you're suggesting sounds like it's headed in the direction of some kind of weird control/domination thing, and that makes me feel threatened personally as well as concerned for what other people, particularly women, will think reading this later. Where are you headed with this?" Call it a 'shot across the bow', delivered woman-style.
Coming from a man, however, them's fightin words. A guy who stands up in front of the room and calls what the last guy said "manipulative nonsense" (or just "nonsense", really--we could probably live with "manipulative") is throwing down a challenge, even if it's done indirectly (lady style) as in the sense of "if what you just said means what I think it means, it's manipulative nonsense". A statement like that has plausible deniability ("I wasn't insulting you personally, I was just saying "if"...), but it still makes an insulting point.
So IC understandably was insulted by what FH2 said, and took offense. I get it. As a performing artist I am acutely aware of the vulnerability of "putting yourself out there" and then waiting for responses, positive or negative. And the more risky or edgy (if we're talking about art) or speculative or politically incorrect (if we're talking about ideas), the more vulnerable. So now IC and FH2 are both having a bad experience here, for different but related reasons. FH2 feels threatened by IC's speculations, and IC feels shot down by FH2's critique. Trouble ensues.
Meanwhile, @FollowingHim's job as moderator is potentially compromised by the fact that his bride is one of the parties to the conflict, and he properly recuses himself from adjudicating it to avoid even the appearance of partiality. So here we are.
Samuel, leave the thread where it is. I have no essential problem with IC's OP, and think his points are worth discussing further if we can move on. And the relatively mild kerfuffle between FH2 and IC is a good illustration of a fairly common situation in male/female communication dynamics that's also worth examining. The thread stays.
IshChayil, my personal opinion is that the private fora are best suited to matters that are deeply personal, and for topics of general interest it is useful to get the ladies' perspectives as we go, even if it can get a little awkward sometimes. That just gives us moments such as this to examine the ways we relate to each other across the gender divide and hopefully improve our communication. I respect your choices, however, regarding how and in what context you want to share speculative or tentative thoughts going forward, and recommend that you give some prayerful consideration to whether to continue with this particular topic in this thread or open a new thread in the men-only forum and then do as you see fit. Your call.
Finally, I commend Samuel for doing a yeoman job of balancing the equities. He did a subtle job of showing that he is Sarah's husband and he will defend her if necessary (I would expect any husband to do the same), but ultimately he did an unimpeachable job of maintaining impartiality as demonstrated ultimately by his recusing himself altogether.
-------
Note (see ¶5 above): I don't really "translate". It's more like I'm fluent in womanspeak, so I can think in womanspeak and understand it without translation. Anyone fluent in multiple languages knows what I'm talking about. Now women may laugh at the idea that I can understand women or that any man can understand women, but whether I do or don't or whether anyone (including myself) can know whether I do or don't isn't the practical problem. As a good scientist, I am looking for theories that accurately predict future results in repeatable tests, and I have found that I get along pretty well thinking the way I think. It's a practical solution that works for me, whether it meets anyone else's abstract requirements or not. And in any event, I think anyone who treats manspeak and womanspeak as two different languages and cultures is going to be steps ahead of anyone who wastes time trying to conform the two to one standard.
The secret to successfully keeping three wives has been revealed! In all seriousness, your way of looking at manspeak vs womanspeak is very insightful, I had all the puzzle pieces but hadn't quite slotted them together into a consistent whole like this before. The interpretation you have provided of Sarah is exactly correct (I don't point that out to raise the issue again, but rather as verification of the menspeak/womanspeak point that Andrew has made - his way of looking at it works, because here he perfectly interpreted the meaning of the words of a woman he has never met in person). I do think that this could be fleshed out to provide an excellent logical framework for understanding the opposite gender, that could be very helpful for many people. Don't mention polygamy and you could publish a book on it widely!
Last edited:
I'd forgotten all about this thread. As I was reading back thru it it reminded me of a conversation at the Texas retreat.
A comment was made about not feeling free to bless one wife when the other was misbehaving so as not to generate jealousy. (Paraphrased).
It reminded me of how the blessings and cursing of Deuteronomy were presented coupled with Baalam's episode. In the story of Baalam, he was unable to curse God's people because they were doing right, thus, only blessings could be given. His advice was that the only way that Israel could be defeated was to entice them to sin. In effect, this would remove the protective covering and 'bind the strong man'.
As a husband operating as a steward of the blessings of God, a wife or child who is operating in a right relationship is eligible for blessings to flow their way regardless of the actions of another. Likewise a wife or child who is at odds has effectively 'bound' their strong man.
This condition can only be remedied by a return to fellowship, thus loosing the strong man and allowing blessings to flow once again.
My response was that the well behaved wife should continue to be blessed and that blessings for the one at odds should resume at the point that she has realigned with her husband.
FWIW, I don't see this as manipulation, simply accountable stewardship based on the example given- God's interaction specifically with Judah and Israel
A comment was made about not feeling free to bless one wife when the other was misbehaving so as not to generate jealousy. (Paraphrased).
It reminded me of how the blessings and cursing of Deuteronomy were presented coupled with Baalam's episode. In the story of Baalam, he was unable to curse God's people because they were doing right, thus, only blessings could be given. His advice was that the only way that Israel could be defeated was to entice them to sin. In effect, this would remove the protective covering and 'bind the strong man'.
As a husband operating as a steward of the blessings of God, a wife or child who is operating in a right relationship is eligible for blessings to flow their way regardless of the actions of another. Likewise a wife or child who is at odds has effectively 'bound' their strong man.
This condition can only be remedied by a return to fellowship, thus loosing the strong man and allowing blessings to flow once again.
My response was that the well behaved wife should continue to be blessed and that blessings for the one at odds should resume at the point that she has realigned with her husband.
FWIW, I don't see this as manipulation, simply accountable stewardship based on the example given- God's interaction specifically with Judah and Israel
My Great Grandmother had a rule. If one of us messed up we were all punished. The idea was that if we were all held equally responsible for the actions of one we would police ourselves. All this did was galvanize us in rebellion. To avoid being punished for the actions of one we would all cover for each other. The idea of trying to make things equal can have an unforseen negative out come. I agree with @Verifyveritas76 bless those who deserve to be blessed without regards to the idea of equality.