Dude! You can see the space station floating across the nighttime sky, with your own eyes!
-
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.
Why does the Husband Not Need Permission from his Wife?
- Thread starter Earth_is-
- Start date
@nathan asked that we stop this flat earth nonsense discussion, but you insist.
Yeah! I think the idea of emptying your thoughts, is a bad idea at best, and can be a dangerous invitation to the spiritual realm that ought to be avoided. You are doing well to keep your mind occupied. Col 3:2 says to set you mind on things above, albeit he is writing to those who have been raised with Christ.
Please knock it off, Nathan gave direction here.
Do you know who Nathan is?
That has nothing to do with the fact that the space station is visible with the naked eye.
That’s 100% fine. But if someone wants to come out and say “big bang” is fact - when it’s a un-proven theory - I will speak truth (what does the Word actually say), and expose the fruits of deception. That’s how we are to examine someone, right? Look at their fruit. That’s what I did with nasa. The astronauts. I showed you their fruit. Then I showed you what the Word actually says.
And one day everyone will know how far the deception really goes:
Last edited:
No, not really. The idea posits that what we call "The Universe" is just the relatively local group of galaxies that is as much as 30bn light years across.
There can be other such groups hundreds of billions or even trillions of light years away and for now we would have no means to detect or observe them.
This is not far off from the radical idea that came up when it was suggested that other stars could have planets around them. The idea was properly mocked and ridiculed by the usual collection of ignoramuses with fancy titles and then in 1992 the first exoplanet was detected, observed, and proven.
The actual Universe then is infinitely bigger and older than our pathetic little minds could ever imagine.
Watched recently video about rogue planets. Seems most of planets are them. They are floating in "open space", not rotating around stars.
And we can't see most of Universe since it's father than light we can receive.
Psalms 19:1-6
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
4 Yet their voice[b] goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.
5 It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
6 It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is deprived of its warmth.
Not only that, I can use a relatively cheap HT and talk to the astronauts on it.
I think I was responding to Maia's Tea Kwon Do remark regarding emptying your thoughts. We are going to agree on some things, and other things, we are not. I worked briefly at a company that outfitted modules for the space shuttle program, and they have pictures all over the office space that show the module on the space shuttle.. Trying to convince me that we have not gone up into space, will always be a futile effort. This is not salvific, so you can believe either way and still end up in heaven. The other thread has been locked until it can be broken up, and when it is, we can carry on the scientific discussion in a new thread. I am a bit of a fan of Real Science Radio. Bob Enyart has gone on to be with the Lord, and he was a bit of a controversial figure. He did conduct an interview with a polygamist on his radio show, and the polygamist wasn't really fully prepared. It is instructive however, to listen to debates, even ones where our side doesn't present a strong case, so that we might glean from it, and be better prepared.
I did want to make a point about the singularity concept, which is where Big Bang stems from, and which relies on Einstein's theories regarding curvature of space-time. This theory postulates that mass causes space-time to curve, but offers no mechanism whatsoever to explain how that would happen. Now if you understand the density of the sea of vitual particles could be greater around objects of mass, for obvious reasons, it is not hard to understand the effect of light bending as a result of that density. Planets orbit a star and moons orbit a planet, because of conservation of momentum, and the push of the virtual particles, we often refer to as gravity. IOW, we observe the effect, and have often attributed the cause to gravity from the nearby object, as if the star or planet was somehow magically pulling on it's satellite. So the planet or moon is not orbiting the other object, because of some magical curvature of the space around that object, but rather, because it is literally being pushed toward that object, and the object is likewise being pushed towards it! So the earth itself is not pulling on the moon, but rather, the moon is being pushed in all directions, except for the direction that happens to be earthward, and likewise the earth is being pushed in all directions equally, except in the direction that the sun is. The sun is on the one hand blocking some, but not all of the virtual particles coming towards the earth, and likewise, the earth causes the sun to wobble, because there is a sliver of virtual particles that is not pushing the sun away from the earth, while nothing is "blocking" the virtual particles that push on the sun from other directions.
How does this relate to the concept of a singularity? Well if mass had some magical ability to pull on other mass, you might expect that mass to collapse on itself, as we observe with black holes, as they sweep up even more mass, but if you understand that black holes are accruing more mass because of the behaviour of the sea of virtual particles, given the scenario of a singularity, you have to wonder what would keep that sea of virtual particles from just flying apart, rather than compressing the singularity. Now we could invoke God, if God had indicated somehow, somewhere that this is what He started off with, but there are a number of verses in Scripture that indicate that without Him, nothing is made. Col 1:16 says that all things have been created through Him and for Him. John 1:3 says "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." Heb 11:3 says that what is made was not made out of anything that is visible. I suppose one could argue that the singularity would have been so small, that it would not have been visible to the human eye, but this would precede a time when humans existed, and God can see all things. Now of course if the sea of virtual particles failed to contain that singularity, it would respond similarly to what is described in the Big Bang Theory, but it leaves open the question of how we got to a singularity in the first place, since it is not the mass of the objects magically sucking in all the matter that exists in the Universe.
My apologies for being so verbose, but I want to give clear reasons why I don't believe Big Bang or a singularity, is a feasible concept.
How does this relate to the concept of a singularity? Well if mass had some magical ability to pull on other mass, you might expect that mass to collapse on itself, as we observe with black holes, as they sweep up even more mass, but if you understand that black holes are accruing more mass because of the behaviour of the sea of virtual particles, given the scenario of a singularity, you have to wonder what would keep that sea of virtual particles from just flying apart, rather than compressing the singularity. Now we could invoke God, if God had indicated somehow, somewhere that this is what He started off with, but there are a number of verses in Scripture that indicate that without Him, nothing is made. Col 1:16 says that all things have been created through Him and for Him. John 1:3 says "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." Heb 11:3 says that what is made was not made out of anything that is visible. I suppose one could argue that the singularity would have been so small, that it would not have been visible to the human eye, but this would precede a time when humans existed, and God can see all things. Now of course if the sea of virtual particles failed to contain that singularity, it would respond similarly to what is described in the Big Bang Theory, but it leaves open the question of how we got to a singularity in the first place, since it is not the mass of the objects magically sucking in all the matter that exists in the Universe.
My apologies for being so verbose, but I want to give clear reasons why I don't believe Big Bang or a singularity, is a feasible concept.
I may be making a BIG faux pas here with my first comment being in the middle of what has become a big, from under the bridge, bomb throwing furry hairball (@Maia) touching nearly every trigger point the longtime residents of this Forum hold near and dear and are easily and vociferously defensive of, even if most of them have absolutely NOTHING to do, even tangentially with the OP, but I'm going to take that risk.
First, I also am Mainstream LDS by my "raisin'" but have been "fundy" adjacent through the history and influence of numerous friends. While I take issue with numerous interpretations of various fundamentalist groups, I believe each is trying hard to follow Christ through their prism just as I am through mine. As are any number of persons on this Forum. I have spent decades in contact and deep discussions with various flavors of LDS on a number of topics that I think the "Church" has lost focus on or even capitulated to secular culture.
This is one of them.
To my point on your comment, I offer the following observation which come from long study and prayer to understand something I at one point could not really fathom, as a MSLDS monogamist:
In my brand of LDS, it is often taught that Sarah giving Abraham Hagar was an example of not having faith in God's promises. And the resulting problems with Hagar were a result of that breach of faith. This never set well with me because it always seemed that the problems never to amounted to much until Sarah had her own child, some 13 or thereabout years later. I may be incorrect in this, but that is my take.
To continue, Sarah, in my opinion, did not offer or give "permission". She, in fact, submitted in the most loving & humble way a woman can possibly submit to her husband in her primary role as Abraham's aid to fulfill the commands of his God.
Abraham's God was requiring Abraham to produce an heir. Sarah "knew" she could not provide that, at her age. So she did what was necessary to provide that heir to Abraham, according to the then custom. That was, to give him her handmaiden to produce an heir on her behalf.
And, then, similar to Leah & Rachel, she was blessed with her own son, the true heir.
And this is the point I would like to make: The Law of Sarah is not a matter of the Wife giving permission to take another wife. The Law of Sarah is the Law governing the responsibility of a Wife to do whatever it takes, as helpmeet to her Husband, to help him fulfill what he believes is the command/mission/task his God has given him to perform.
Again, this is my understanding, and the only one that has made sense to me.
I think this also is backed up my the points well made by @MelissaE quoting Joseph Smith from the D&C clearly stating permission was not necessary.
I make no bones about the folly I think a man may commit if he just brings another woman home like a stray cat. But he has the Authority, Agency, the Right and the Power to do so. The FW also has the Agency and the Power to react negatively regardless if she has the Right or Authority. I think a wise man carefully considers the counsel of a wise woman. But, in the end, if he has sought the guidance of the Spirit and it is his true conviction this is what must be according to the will of his God, it is now also the FW who has a responsibility under the Law of Sarah to honestly try to make it work.
I hope this can help get things beck on track...or at least closer to approaching the OP.
Comments are welcome...and...please be kind to the long time lurker.
The husband also has the responsibility to love and respect his wife does he not? If the wife considers a second wife (it is irrelevant in this argument if it is the concept of a 2nd wife in general or a specific 2nd wife) such an abomination that her life would become a sea of melancholy, can he really claim that he loves the 1st wife?
Also, is it not the paramount directive to save the sanctuary of the marriage? If a 2nd wife would cause the 1st to file for divorce is he not his duty to refrain from actions that endanger the marriage?
Now, you might argue that if the 1st wife is the one that files for divorce then it falls on her. If you argue that then demonstrate logical subsumption and causality.
Late reply sorry: That is scriptural. God created everything, and pronounced it all "very good" (Genesis 1). Would God make the original humans' DNA correctly, or intentionally make it with defects? If it had defects, would he call it "very good"?If the did marry between siblingsthen one would need to provide a logical explanation why there are no genetic defects. Doing some googling, it seems various sources suggest that original humans DNA was "pure" and then after Noah was corrupted. I am not sure where the origin of this train of thought is, everyone is quoting in circles. In any case it is not supported by scripture.
Obviously God would make them perfect initially, and defects would then accumulate over time (through various mechanisms we can study with science). If Adam & Eve's DNA was perfect, the first generation after them would be almost-perfect and have an essentially zero chance of congenital defects even with sibling marriage. It would take many generations for enough defects to accumulate for this to be a problem. Sibling marriage was not prohibited until the time of Moses, presumably because it was only then that enough defects had accumulated for sibling marriage to become dangerous.
Importantly, although others have discussed young earth creation vs big bang theory and so forth, that is going far beyond the point I am making. Here we are only talking about Adam and Eve, and their descendants. The specific points I made above are entirely relevant whenever Adam & Eve originated - whether that was on the sixth day of a literal 6-day creation week, or only after billions of years of prior history. Regardless, at some point the first humans originated - and Christianity teaches that they were made by God "very good", whenever that was. Which would mean that their DNA was also very good, making sibling marriage not risky.
Honestly, I think you're rejecting this fundamentally, on a subconscious level, simply because it grosses you out, and your other arguments exist just to find a reason for what you have already decided. I find it gross too, but that's just cultural bias. Marriage of close relatives has been common in many cultures throughout history, and people who are raised to expect it don't find it gross. We only see it as gross because you and I have been raised in cultures that see it as gross. We have to be very careful not to read scripture through the lens of our own cultural biases.
I will respond to this under the single optimistic assumption that your response is genuine. And if it continues to be hostile I will disengage. This may be long; there is a summary at the end.
First, my response was primarily to the "Mormon-ish" aspects of the statement by @IndianaLife . That response is informed by long deep conversations, fasting, prayer and decades of searching and translating. It is also just my view and others are free to agree or disagree. YMMV
Second, whether deliberately or not, your syllogistic frame is flawed. I do not say this as an attack, but an observation. If you consider what I say here you might understand that from the perspective of many here you are constantly arguing that "...all birds are ducks."
You seem to have approached many, if not most of the topics you respond to as if the Laws of God and the Laws of Man are an All-You-Can-Eat Buffet and you can just pick and choose a particular Law of God when it is convenient or agreeable to you, but then choose a Law (or Tradition or Philosophy) of Man when the Law of God in question causes you some distress or misunderstanding. Do not perceive this as an attack; it's not. All of us have been given our start in this World in whatever culture we were born or driven into and are primed to view things from that perspective. Societal "programming" is a real thing.
Most here on this Forum, are trying to overcome their Societal programming and allow themselves to operate according to the principles espoused by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They, as do I, believe His Ways are above our ways and that there are just things that an All-Knowing God knows that we do not, and understands that we do not. This does not seem to be your frame and as such you argue past and around points people here make while not acknowledging their presumptions. This is not logic, or at least the use of logic for the purposes of understanding.
This is evident, specifically by your question implying that the "paramount directive" is "to save the sanctuary of the marriage." Awkward phraseology aside, this is in err. You have subsumed God to Marriage. Most here subsume Marriage to God. Full stop.
If your intentions on this forum are truly to learn rather than foment, this may very well be the reason you have trouble understanding the varied, but generally similar, opinions expressed on this site.
In the Frame in which most people here are attempting to operate, we are required to live "in the world" but not be "of the world". We are also to subsume our perceived needs and desires to those God requires of us. We are also to subsume the Laws of Man to the Laws of God where they conflict. This may be difficult at times and may be fraught with the possibility of prosecution by the Laws of Man.
This also means that our feelings are not always indicators of good or bad, right or wrong, love hate or disinterest.
If my wife wants something but it is not in the budget, she usually does not get it. Same for my wants. But this does not mean I don't love her. She may also want something that is needed but want it to be purple. If purple is not available but red or green is, it is still needed, Again, we now have a red or green thing that is needed and she's not as happy as she would have been had it been purple, but a purple one was not available. But that does not mean I don't love or respect her. Hopefully she will recognize the that the need for the item is more important than the desire for the item to be purple, and will subsume her desire (feelings) about the color to the need for the item.
In my past as both a manager and a business owner I have had to hire people for positions that the existing employees did not want. Sometimes the concerns were legitimate, other times the concerns were ego driven. But I had to use my judgement and exercise my authority and mission to strengthen the company/department. In some cases an existing employee (some of them good productive employees) refused to accept it and left the company. In other cases the existing employees endured the temporary inconvenience and learned how to work with the new person as the new person learned to work with the existing ones. In both cases the business or the department was made stronger through the addition even though it was less optimal because of the loss of another good employee. The employee that left bears all the responsibility for their actions. If they caused trouble in the company or department because of their feelings, not my fault. If they leave employment, unfortunate but not my fault.
Not wanting to be cold and hard, but the same is true for a marriage. Causality.
Executive Summary: (drawing on my above answer and other sources in this Forum)
1. My statement was primarily concerning the Law of Sarah, from one of a number of Mormon-ish perspectives, and your response talked right past it without regard to the intent or content. Specifically the content that implied I believe it would be unwise for a man to make such an addition to his Family without at least the knowledge and counsel from his FW (or existing) wife or wives.
2. Your frame of reference seems to be an à la carte view of the Laws of God & the Laws of Man.
3. Most here believe in a more table d'hôte view of the Laws of God & the Laws of Man.
4. Most here believe God loves us and is infinitely wiser than us and that we subsume our flawed immature desires and perceptions of our needs to his mature perfect understanding of such.
5. As part of that understanding God has designed an authority structure as such: God --> Christ (if you're Christian) --> Man(Husband/Father[until marriage]) --> Woman
6. Both Men and Women have equal (not the same) responsibilities and rights under this structure, both to God and to each other.
7. Our feelings will naturally affect us, but we are to subsume our feelings, per #4, to the wisdom of God, per #5, regardless of our feelings or our understanding of why it must be. Husband submits to God and Wife submits to Husband regardless of feelings or understanding of why.
8. We all have agency to choose to follow God's Law or our own feelings. If we follow our feelings we are responsible for the demise of the marriage. This is causality.
9. If you, @Maia, cannot progress in your grasp or acceptance of these things beyond the very basics of #3 & #4, you will be forever mired in the morass made by the syllogistic implications of #2. I'm not asking you to BELEIVE #3 & #4; I'm asking you to understand that that's where most people here are coming from and comment/question/argue accordingly.
10. As much as I love ducks (I've raised them and they're lots of fun, and good eatin') but, all birds are NOT ducks.
Again, just my opinions. And maybe I should have just posted the summary.
Also, for the record, I do appreciate the attempted intellectuality of your comments @Maia. As long as you are truly seeking to understand, "Good on you."
I did not see anything hostile in her message. Husabnds are to love their wives. Now it is not the husband's responsibility if the wife leaves, but Scripture clearly states that the husband is to love his wife as Christ lovedd the church!
The difference here is that your employees come to you with the understanding that you will hire other employees. Most of our wives came to us with the understanding that she would be the only one. That complicates this whole issue when to turn around and receive a revelation from God that she is blindsided by, after she has already made the committment to us.
We have alredy addressed the fact that there is no "Law of Sarah" in Scriptures, and that this website here is "Biblical Families", not "Book of Mormon Families".
Last edited:
Both were a little snappish with each other. She could have asked without sounding accusatory, and he could have responded more gently.
Sarah was accustomed to the idea of having different wives. At least the notion was known to her as other men at the time did have second wives so the argument is a little bit different.
But yes it is much harder now because Christian men and christian women are married believing it is only just each other, and women will have to overcome the temptation to hold it against their husbands. I am sure they fear adultery, it's hard not to as we are surrounded by a lot of adulterous men and even some polyganist men are adulterous, but not all men are, and so it is something she needs God to help reassure her of.
When I first joined this site, I thought it was for ALL people who believe in the bible and believe in polygany. It even has a space to say what religion is your background? Why put that if you expect to be unable to mention something from my background even if it disagrees with some other believers? Why join a site expecting there to be differences of religion if no one who holds a religion with some differences is allowed to speak of them?
Now if I had realised that I would not even be allowed to mention anything I believed differently on this site because I was LDS without receiving reproof (because this isn't a place for "Book or Mormon" families, or all the equivalents you get to a NC "bless your heart" because you mentioned you're LDS) I would have approached this site differently. I might not have ever mentioned I was LDS if I chose to join.
I even thought that meeting polyganists from varying religious backgrounds would be a good experience because I could learn more about how people do things differently and see what I like and what I dislike easier. It's a good way to learn more about polygany itself, as most people on this site are new or newer to the idea of polygany as well. And a religious background, a different religious beliefs, play into how a polyganist family is run. So understanding those beliefs and seeing how they run their houses is something I wanted to see for myself.
Now we all believe that Sarah permitted Abraham to take her hand-maiden Hagar to wife, or at least allowed her husband to have children with Hagar. Abraham is Sarah's half brother, so yes, his father had two wives. One wife could have died before the other but if I'm not wrong polygany was still more in that culture. So I think most of the people here can agree that God blesses us for doing something right, even if it is hard, or if there are bad consequences. (Christians protecting Jews in WW2 for a strong example, you could die for that, but you did the right thing). Most people here believe that polygany is a good thing, albeit hard to get perfectly right. When LDS mention "the Law of Sarah" it is just another way to say that the first wife is blessed for offering a woman to her husband rather than fighting him over the idea of polygany. Now you can get more complex and say that we believe she retains more of a right in the relationship to decide who her husband brings in because that's part of the idea. If a wife freaks out over polygany, never repents and wreaks havoc in his life, and yet God wants a man to have a second wife, God will bring it about despite how the first wife feels. It has nothing to do with if the first wife is still loved by the husband. She should be. It would be wrong and in a lot of circumstances sinful if otherwise. Also I don't believe God would intervene to give a man a second wife if he didn't love and care for his first wife. That's the basic idea. If you think about it logically and I never mentioned it as the "Law of Sarah" I think a lot less offense would be taken by it.
Maybe I can put it more clearly. I believe if a first wife helps her husband find a partner in polygany, she is viewed more reasonably and favorably in a decision of who to bring into the family, than if she rejects and balks at the idea wholesale hating whatever woman her husband might consider just because he is considering her. Also I believe God will bless her for helping her husband and being mindful of him and polygany.
Now I'm on the boat that we drop the law of Sarah debate as no one but LDS people know what we're talking about on a public thread but I wanted to make the point that if I had said that as a suggestion, or as logic, not calling it by an LDS term (and without you knowing that I was LDS) that it would have been not considered that offensive.
Last edited:
I like it.
Heh, sorry...just popped in my head. Bringing home some random rockabilly girl you met at rollerderby...'Honey! Come meet your new sister wife. Y'all should get matching tattoos!'
Welcome to the party.I hope this can help get things beck on track...or at least closer to approaching the OP.
Comments are welcome...and...please be kind to the long time lurker.
Though if this joint getting off track seems weird, you really could not have been lurking all that long.
It is like an extended family here at the holidays where there is no proscription against religion or politics being discussed...Likely at the holidays.
Fair warning...I am the irascible crazy (oooor is he?) Uncle, so that position is taken.
Hit the bar and make yourself comfortable
I will get back to that at the end.
What are the two arguments that make up the syllogistic frame in this case?
Sure. Everyone does.
Look at this from my perspective. This forum is the first time in my life that I have debated a flat earther. I knew they existed, but I thought it was so fringe that one would never encounter one. Yet I encountered one here. Granted he was shut down by some, however that does cause me to question what the overlap is between people who take an extreme stance on scripture, and fringe ideas.
Now you are starting to enter very dangerous territory, since this is the kind of reasoning that is used to justify religious warfare, and religious killings.
Anyone who uses scripture to justify dominance, or sufferings of others is a threat.
Let me put one edit in there. Of course laws of man can be corrupt as well. The people who were hiding Anna Frank were technically criminals after all, and the people who handed her to the Nazis were law abiding citizens. So some laws should be ignored. Which ones are those? Well, that can be tricky.
I do stand by my comment that using scripture as a means of aggression is morally wrong, even if one can find some text allowing genocide.
That is not a religious issue, that is just life. If something is not in the budget, it is not in the budget. If a color is not available, it is not available If you did not allow your wife to buy something just because you have different taste that would be something different.
That was not what was meant with causality and you know it.
You say I am hostile, but then you add this underhanded slight. Practice what you preach.
Last edited: