How LGBTQ+, Feminism, & The Social Gospel Movement Supports "The Patriarchy".

[jcee]

(Hope this is the right thread) I'm curious what you all think of this. The Social Gospel Movement in the late 19th century emphasized the application of Christian principles to social problems like poverty, inequality, and labor conditions, propelling some churches to emphasize 'social justice'. The Feminist Movement in the 60's (and now) challenged traditional gender roles and patriarchal interpretations of scripture. The LGBTQ+ Rights Movement in the 60's (and again, now) challenged traditional views on sexuality and gender identity, prompting some churches to re-examine their interpretation of biblical passages regarding sexuality (especially homosexuality).

With that in mind, do you think that God is using all of this to bring back patriarchal and even polygamous family structures? Here are some reasons I think so:

1. There is an emphasis on "Individual Autonomy": All three movements champion individual choice and freedom from oppressive social structures. This could theoretically be extended to argue for the right to choose one's marital structure.

2. A Relook or maybe Reinterpretation of the Bible: The Feminist and LGBTQ+ movements have challenged traditional interpretations of the Bible, opening the door for reinterpreting passages regarding marriage and family structures. Considering the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, I wonder how this will play out regarding verses like Matthew 5:28, etc.

3. Normalizing Diverse Relationships: The LGBTQ+ movement has successfully normalized non-traditional relationships, potentially paving the way for greater acceptance of other forms of marriage like polygyny.

4. Focus on "Consent and Equality": All three movements prioritize consent and equality within relationships. Proponents of polygyny could argue that as long as all parties are consenting adults and power dynamics are equitable, polygyny should be permissible.

5. Legal Precedents: The legalization of same-sex marriage has established legal precedents for expanding marriage rights beyond traditional heterosexual monogamy. This could potentially be used to argue for polygyny.

Even though polygyny seems to be attached to "the patriarchy" (which feminists are against), the arguments these movements use to promote their agenda seem to be inadvertently paving the way for polygynous patriarchal families to "come out" if you will.

How do you see this playing out in your areas?

 

[Michael Moon]

I think the world and the "whore"/false church would rather use these things to try and group polygyny with these evils. The form of polygamy that is attached to the Alphabet Mafia movement is polyamory, "throuples", and (far more often than polygyny) polyandry.

I don't believe the evils perpetrated by the world, nor governmental legitimization of those evils, are Yah's doing.

But the story of Joseph comes to mind. What the enemy has meant for evil, Yah can use for good. We can take part in the good that Yah has planned, we must humble ourselves under His mighty hand, seek Him first in our lives, turn away from evil and live righteously, and then The Father will begin to heal our lands of the evils surrounding us.

As to your points:

1. There is an emphasis on "Individual Autonomy": All three movements champion individual choice and freedom from oppressive social structures. This could theoretically be extended to argue for the right to choose one's marital structure.

Perhaps if it could become a movement that is pushing for government to completely get out of the marriage business. But I don't view polygyny has having much to do with "Individual Autonomy". Patriarchy and Biblical marriage are the much more important aspect, polygyny just comes with it. Polygyny is not okay because some people choose it as their marital structure, it is okay because Yah allows it.

2. A Relook or maybe Reinterpretation of the Bible: The Feminist and LGBTQ+ movements have challenged traditional interpretations of the Bible, opening the door for reinterpreting passages regarding marriage and family structures. Considering the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, I wonder how this will play out regarding verses like Matthew 5:28, etc.

I am a person who most other Christians would probably excommunicate for my beliefs concerning what is and what isn't scripture. I take textual criticism fairly seriously, and if I was making the "canon" it would be much smaller than even the protestant.

That said, I would prefer the "canon" stay as it is than everyone begin to attempt reinterpreting the Bible. For lack of a better term, that is some "risky business". I do believe the most important aspects of the faith are evident in most translations of the Bible, even if a few words have been tampered with due to an interpreter's biases.

3. Normalizing Diverse Relationships: The LGBTQ+ movement has successfully normalized non-traditional relationships, potentially paving the way for greater acceptance of other forms of marriage like polygyny.

I don't want this. This would be a sour victory indeed. Normalize Biblical marriage.

4. Focus on "Consent and Equality": All three movements prioritize consent and equality within relationships. Proponents of polygyny could argue that as long as all parties are consenting adults and power dynamics are equitable, polygyny should be permissible.

I don't have time to fully respond to this point, I promise I will come back this afternoon.

5. Legal Precedents: The legalization of same-sex marriage has established legal precedents for expanding marriage rights beyond traditional heterosexual monogamy. This could potentially be used to argue for polygyny.

Again, a sour victory if it means the same document that "legitimizes" my marriage allows for sodomy or effeminate mockery of marriage. Polygyny is legal in the only Law that truly matters.

 

[NickF]

Would you mind removing slanderous slurs against the bride please @Michael Moon. Who are you to judge who is or is not a true believer?

 

[AbrahamSolomon]

I think the world and the "whore"/false church would rather use these things to try and group polygyny with these evils. The form of polygamy that is attached to the Alphabet Mafia movement is polyamory, "throuples", and (far more often than polygyny) polyandry.

I don't believe the evils perpetrated by the world, nor governmental legitimization of those evils, are Yah's doing.

But the story of Joseph comes to mind. What the enemy has meant for evil, Yah can use for good. We can take part in the good that Yah has planned, we must humble ourselves under His mighty hand, seek Him first in our lives, turn away from evil and live righteously, and then The Father will begin to heal our lands of the evils surrounding us.

As to your points:

Perhaps if it could become a movement that is pushing for government to completely get out of the marriage business. But I don't view polygyny has having much to do with "Individual Autonomy". Patriarchy and Biblical marriage are the much more important aspect, polygyny just comes with it. Polygyny is not okay because some people choose it as their marital structure, it is okay because Yah allows it.

I am a person who most other Christians would probably excommunicate for my beliefs concerning what is and what isn't scripture. I take textual criticism fairly seriously, and if I was making the "canon" it would be much smaller than even the protestant.

That said, I would prefer the "canon" stay as it is than everyone begin to attempt reinterpreting the Bible. For lack of a better term, that is some "risky business". I do believe the most important aspects of the faith are evident in most translations of the Bible, even if a few words have been tampered with due to an interpreter's biases.

I don't want this. This would be a sour victory indeed. Normalize Biblical marriage.

I don't have time to fully respond to this point, I promise I will come back this afternoon.

Again, a sour victory if it means the same document that "legitimizes" my marriage allows for sodomy or effeminate mockery of marriage. Polygyny is legal in the only Law that truly matters.

Amen! A man after my own heart! I Pray my son grows up to be a man like you!

 

[Michael Moon]

Would you mind removing slanderous slurs against the bride please @Michael Moon. Who are you to judge who is or is not a true believer?

I specified the whore/false church. Which by it's very definition is not the bride. I didn't say who that is or is not, merely what I think the false church would do.

 

[AbrahamSolomon]

I specified the whore/false church. Which by it's very definition is not the bride. I didn't say who that is or is not, merely what I think the false church would do.

The Lost Churches teach Lawlessness and Celebrate Pagan Holidays and Support man-made traditions over G-d Made Laws.

 

[NickF]

You think it's acceptable to refer to synagogue of satan when alluding to men who act like they're jews who are not? As in men who were born in the USA who dress with tzitzit and observe feasts and sabbaths, use jewish words etc? Do you think that is respectful and appropriate language? It is at least described in scripture accurately.

 

[Michael Moon]

Start a new thread Nick, I was not doing what you are accusing me of.

 

[Michael Moon]

I meant to type this out far sooner, it has been a busy week.

4. Focus on "Consent and Equality": All three movements prioritize consent and equality within relationships. Proponents of polygyny could argue that as long as all parties are consenting adults and power dynamics are equitable, polygyny should be permissible.

This form of patriarchy would be a meaningless victory.

Imagine the United States passed a bill tomorrow that got rid of ALL restrictions on firearms. This would be a victory for the 2nd Amendment, right? Now imagine that attached to that bill is the stipulation that all ammunition is made illegal. Is it still a victory?

Equality is not the goal. Equity is not the goal. We shouldn't pretend like it is, it will just make a problem for ourselves later or for future generations. Patriarchy needs to come before Polygyny. We need to be giving Patriarch's more power and legal authority, not stripping it from them in the hopes that the culture will be more accepting of a second wife.

Honestly, I thought I had a lot more to say on this point, but anything else I wish to add would only serve to derail this thread.

 

[jcee]

I appreciate your perspective, Micheal. If I understand your analogy correctly, polygyny becoming legal would be "getting rid of all restrictions on firearms (marriage)", but making patriarchs (the 'ammo') illegal via the emphasis on equality and equity would be losing?

 

[MemeFan]

I meant to type this out far sooner, it has been a busy week.

This form of patriarchy would be a meaningless victory.

Imagine the United States passed a bill tomorrow that got rid of ALL restrictions on firearms. This would be a victory for the 2nd Amendment, right? Now imagine that attached to that bill is the stipulation that all ammunition is made illegal. Is it still a victory?

Equality is not the goal. Equity is not the goal. We shouldn't pretend like it is, it will just make a problem for ourselves later or for future generations. Patriarchy needs to come before Polygyny. We need to be giving Patriarch's more power and legal authority, not stripping it from them in the hopes that the culture will be more accepting of a second wife.

Honestly, I thought I had a lot more to say on this point, but anything else I wish to add would only serve to derail this thread.

Actually, this could actually work.

Consent is great for us because moral relationship are prosperous, while inmoral are harmful.

It would be only matter of time before couples figure that dropping equality makes relationships better. And social betters would have hard time stopping this that to consent.

Remember, there is no freedom of association in West thanks to civil right laws. Well, consent also undermines this laws. These laws are base of criminalizing any disagreement with trans, feminist etc.. agenda.

 

[Mark C]

Remember, there is no freedom of association in West thanks to civil right laws.

What those who do not understand the form of government we were supposed to have had, based on "self-evident Truth," and, yes, the Common Law, which is right out of Scripture, cannot wrap their heads around is that so-called

'civil rights' LAWS [sic] are unconstitutional. Because they DO violate 'freedom of association,' (find that one!) - just for starters.

Relevant here: ALL of that LGBTQP++ BS, and the Social[ist] Gospel are not merely "coercive" from the start, but compelled "by contract." A contract with what turns out to be "another master."

When you understand that, you'll realize what He meant by 'choice of Law' (i.e., "choose life") and "choose this day Whom you will serve." We really CANNOT serve two masters.

 

[Michael Moon]

I appreciate your perspective, Micheal. If I understand your analogy correctly, polygyny becoming legal would be "getting rid of all restrictions on firearms (marriage)", but making patriarchs (the 'ammo') illegal via the emphasis on equality and equity would be losing?

If polygyny becomes legal only by also allowing polyamory, polyandry, homosexuality, the continuation of no-fault divorce, and further oversight on how men act in their "legal" relationships I would view it as a somewhat nice pair of shoes to step in the wrong direction with.

The legal apparatus surrounding marriage in my nation has already failed. I don't feel any need for polygyny to be approved by it, especially if it would only give ignorant Christians more reason to despise polygyny (if it was indeed linked to homosexuality).

 

[jcee]

If polygyny becomes legal only by also allowing polyamory, polyandry, homosexuality, the continuation of no-fault divorce, and further oversight on how men act in their "legal" relationships I would view it as a somewhat nice pair of shoes to step in the wrong direction with.

The legal apparatus surrounding marriage in my nation has already failed. I don't feel any need for polygyny to be approved by it, especially if it would only give ignorant Christians more reason to despise polygyny (if it was indeed linked to homosexuality).

Oh yea, I think that ushering in the rule and reign of Christ now would be much better too haha. I think the LGBTQ+ movement, which really is anti-Patriarchy, is opening up ways that this way of life can be lived (including polygyny). I can see this playing out in Muslim communities locally where their version of patriarchal polygyny is extending into communities as a 'normal' expression of masculinity and femininity. It's even something regularly searched for on TikTok and other sm platforms. I wonder if the LDS have a plan to change policy over this once the government decides to get out of the marriage game.

 

[frederick]

I wonder if the LDS have a plan to change policy over this once the government decides to get out of the marriage game.

I don't see why governments would abandon their involvement and controls in marriage considering how much money they make and confusion they create(?) More people, not less, are coming under government controls when they get licences for their (new and sinful) government approved marriages.

 

[steve]

I don't see why governments would abandon their involvement and controls in marriage

Yes, there is an unwritten law that denies the ability of governments to give up any rights that they have acquired.

 

[Mark C]

They will use any tool (particularly in contravention of Scripture) to subject people to "a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws" - as Jefferson put it.

And, as the Whore Church/State proved with marriage, it's too perfect a control mechanism to ignore.

 

[MemeFan]

They will use any tool (particularly in contravention of Scripture) to subject people to "a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws" - as Jefferson put it.

And, as the Whore Church/State proved with marriage, it's too perfect a control mechanism to ignore.

It's not just a policitians.

It's also population. We must protect marriage guys. And we can't allow other people to have sex/relationship they want.

Looks guys, you don't have to be friends or support people in inmoral relationships. But often, Christians are unable to stop themselves from law making which provides path for power grab by politicians.