Except Ron, of course, but then football players always get the chicks.
-
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.
Making Progress on the church acceptance front
- Thread starter Daniel DeLuca
- Start date
Except Ron, of course, but then football players always get the chicks.
Good report. Too bad you did not get a chance to respond.
Lust is just a desire for something that you can not have, so I fail to see how it would apply here.
He seems to be claiming a bias, like that it is ok to be attracted to a first wife, but not to be attracted to a second?
Should one get married without a sexual attraction? I would think not.
It seems like in Paul's writing the proper way to handle lust would be to ... get married.
Agreed. There are many such scandals where I wonder if they participants had known about polygamy would things have been different?
I am not a lawyer, but I believe this part of the law is unconstitutional. The facts of the case (more than two people cohabitating in a marriage-like relationship), differing only in what it is called (marriage vs "living together") makes this a free speech issue, especially since there is no associated fraud claim. Given the way this part of the Utah statute was struck down, and the way the Supreme Court has been ruling lately on speech, I expect this only needs one solid case to get the "purports" statute tossed out.
For that matter, given that the last couple PM cases were tossed for lack of standing, not on merit, I think we could win the brass ring of full decriminalization if we could only get one solid case all the way to the SCOTUS. We need our Rosa Parks.
C
Cap
Guest
When does this actually matter any more?
It's not a speech issue. You have to remember that in the common law historically if you held her out as your wife, she was your wife. There were no licenses and such; just your testimony. So to call a woman as your wife, when you have another legal wife, is bigamy from that perspective.
In other words it's a legal artifact. Completely inappropriate under current jurisprudence and statutory regulation of marriage; but there it is.
When necessary one could refer to an additional wife as a concubine and all will be well. Or if an additional wife has any bisexual bone her body, you could technically refer to your arrangement as polyamorous... then you’ll be applauded rather than attacked. Sad but true.
I don’t necessarily endorse either approach... just saying.
I don’t necessarily endorse either approach... just saying.
Are you referring to my reference to Nathan Sheets or William Luck?
Didn't you tell me about one in Dallas that is Torah observant? I found somebody on Facebook who was telling me about a church he pastors that is pro-poly. If we can start up enough of these churches, we could really get this ball rolling. Just sayin'!
Our church had a Family Festival last night (Halloween alternative) although there were a few people conspicuously dressed as a witch and other Halloween related themes, which I find quite frustrating. My thoughts turned to one day having a second wife and bringing her along with my current wife to an event like that, and kissing both my wives on the lips in front of everybody. Maybe I could go as King Joash!
I was told Saturday that if I do get a second wife, I will probably be asked to stop attending my church. One thing is for certain, if and when that does happen, they will be the last to know about it. I would love to be honest and forthright with them, and I have as much as possible, because I wouldn't want to blindside them with this, but they have already demon-strated that they don't care about any truth other than their own version of the truth...which leads me to report on the conversation I and my wife had with the minister that we spoke to on Saturday.........
Last edited:
My wife wanted to talk with the Director of Adult Ministries. Having been muzzled, at least on church property, I was quite resistant to the idea of meeting with him myself, but when she told me that he had agreed to meet with her off campus, I told her that I had no problem meeting with them. He was already waiting for us when we arrived, so we greeted him, and he was kind enough to get us a drink before we sat down to have our discussion. My wife started off, asking if he was aware of my belief and desire to have a second wife, and he acknowledged that he was already aware of this. Sometimes I wonder if my wife's resistance to polygamy is from God, in order to give me opportunities to share what I have learned, that I would otherwise not have. This minister whom we shall refer to as Mr B, responded by talking about different marriage enrichment classes that our church has that we can go to, and my wife told him about a scheduling conflict, and that the new children's program they have adopted is not something our son wants to be a part of. I also pointed out that there may be some things in those classes that I would object to, and that might be a problem, as the church wants to silence me in that regard. Seeing as he could not play that hand, he ended up having to try to defend his, and the church's position against polygamy, which he was totally unprepared to do.
After my wife shared her concerns, he asked for my response I told him that my marriage is not in trouble, as she had claimed, since I have no intention of divorcing her, and as far as I know, she is not intent on divorcing me. He brought up Ephesians 5, and as just last week, I started this thread here on BF about Logical Fallacies that anti-polys love to employ, and I looked up and found the Intentionality Fallacy, so I told him that he had just employed that fallacy. He seemed clueless as to what a fallacy is. He told me that we are twisting Scripture, and that he knew all the Scriptures that we use as proof that God allows polygamy. I pressed him on it, and he couldn't name one. He was like a deer caught in the headlights! So, I helped him out a little. I gave him II Sam 12:8. He wasn't even aware of the attempts anti-polys have used to claim that Nathan wasn't really talking about actual wives, which we all know is bunk, so I helped him with that objection, in order to disprove it. I brought up Gen 20:6 as well. He had no response whatsoever.
Mr B. proceeded to tell me that he didn't know of any seminary that teaches this, and that no scholars agree with me on this. I told him about Dr L. and his credentials. He then employed the Ad Populum fallacy, saying that the vast majority of scholars don't see it that way. I pointed out that the majority is not always right, and that when leaders and scholars do acknowledge the truth, Ad Bacalerum (Argument by Force) is employed to throw them out, and I pointed out that this is what the church did in throwing me out of leadership.
There were some issues that my wife brought up, and I had to interrupt her to warn her not to divulge something that could get us thrown out of church, since Mr B. is on staff, which she wasn't too thrilled about, but it had to do with having this platform that I now have, because of the fact that people are curious about why I am not in the orchestra any more, and I assured Mr. B that while on church property I have been vague, but I was at the home of a couple, and no such restriction has been placed on me, to be silent about his matter when talking to fellow church goers, off premise. He seemed to go along with that.
One of the things I proposed in that meeting, was a modest proposal to send a messenger to the Convention to propose that no one who has more than one wife, should be asked to divorce any of his wives. His response was that there is no one like that, since polygamy is illegal. He was utterly clueless about the FLDS! I had to explain who they were to him! Of course the whole legal question keeps rearing its ugly head, and I had to address that. He told me I should talk about that with my representative, to get that changed. I didn't tell him that my representative is a hard left-leaning liberal, and that I don't feel comfortable doing that.
Well given that my wife expressed her opinions and concerns, I don't want to divulge too much of what took place there, because I know that God has to change her heart on this issue, but if and when she does come around, I don't want too much floating out there that could cause hurt feelings, but I pointed out one Logical Fallacy after another that he employed. He acknowledged that I know Scripture, probably better than he does, even though he is substantially older than I am. I told him that the folks over here at BF also know this issue from a Biblical perspective as well, and that we have pastors who have been expelled from their pulpits (I am seeing a good YouTube ad that we could put together to bring that to the average churchgoer's attention), and I pointed out that most people have never even considered this issue.
He used the "H" word ("heresy", that is) with me, but he then couched it with the "I think" qualifier. About three or four times, I told him that his opinion is only worth as much as it aligns with Scripture. I could have just come right out and said that I don't care what he thinks, but I didn't want to come off that way, but he didn't seem to understand what I was saying, so I had to repeat it, until I finally said that if you he is going to refer to it as heresy, he had better have some Scripture to back it up. I pointed out that this was the "Unsupported Assertion" Fallacy. He went back to Ephesians 5 to argue that Paul used the word "wife" in it's singular form, to which I responded that he was employing the Quantitative Shift fallacy. Another fallacy that was brought up, was the "Straw Man",... the old "Just because the Bible mentions polygamy", which is also a "Half Truth" fallacy, when you think about it. Of course I didn't let him get away with that.
We talked about truth, and how you cannot be in line with the truth when you are relying on one logical fallacy after another, and the fact that truth comes from God's Word, and the fact that he had not even attempted to use God's Word (of course aside from his misuse of Eph 5, which I pointed out was not about polygamy at all, but rather about how husbands are to treat their wives), but he dug in his heels, and said that I am not going to change his mind. I challenged him to show me Scripture that says that polygamy is wrong, and of course, he couldn't
We talked about debating this issue, and I pointed out that if any neutral unbiased observer had witnessed our discussion, they would have to agree with my position. I even mentioned the YouTube debate held with Pastor D and Pastor R, and how Pastor D wiped the floor with Pastor R, and how even an observer who claimed that they were hoping that Pastor R would win the debate, He is not interested in a debate. He says that my position is preposterous. One would think that if that were the case, his side should easily win hands down, and that God would use that to bring all of us in line with the truth. I told him that he knows that the anti-poly position would lose.
We talked about so many things, that I am going to have to cut this short, but I may come back and add some more, just for fun. I hope this has been instructive, and I will add more to the
Logical Fallacies Anti-Polys love to employ thread. This morning, the Lord impressed upon my heart to pray for the four ministers I have been in contact with, that He would speak to them. Our pastor had a sermon yesterday that was what I would consider heretical, and he tried to couch it as something that you should be cautious about, but I have no doubt he had this issue in mind when he preached it. He totally misapplied Col 3:15, in an effort to say that somehow, we can find truth by whether we sense peace about it. Of course my "Balderdash antenna" was up the whole sermon, and when he cautioned about using this as a tool to determine truth, I uttered a hearty "AMEN".
After my wife shared her concerns, he asked for my response I told him that my marriage is not in trouble, as she had claimed, since I have no intention of divorcing her, and as far as I know, she is not intent on divorcing me. He brought up Ephesians 5, and as just last week, I started this thread here on BF about Logical Fallacies that anti-polys love to employ, and I looked up and found the Intentionality Fallacy, so I told him that he had just employed that fallacy. He seemed clueless as to what a fallacy is. He told me that we are twisting Scripture, and that he knew all the Scriptures that we use as proof that God allows polygamy. I pressed him on it, and he couldn't name one. He was like a deer caught in the headlights! So, I helped him out a little. I gave him II Sam 12:8. He wasn't even aware of the attempts anti-polys have used to claim that Nathan wasn't really talking about actual wives, which we all know is bunk, so I helped him with that objection, in order to disprove it. I brought up Gen 20:6 as well. He had no response whatsoever.
Mr B. proceeded to tell me that he didn't know of any seminary that teaches this, and that no scholars agree with me on this. I told him about Dr L. and his credentials. He then employed the Ad Populum fallacy, saying that the vast majority of scholars don't see it that way. I pointed out that the majority is not always right, and that when leaders and scholars do acknowledge the truth, Ad Bacalerum (Argument by Force) is employed to throw them out, and I pointed out that this is what the church did in throwing me out of leadership.
There were some issues that my wife brought up, and I had to interrupt her to warn her not to divulge something that could get us thrown out of church, since Mr B. is on staff, which she wasn't too thrilled about, but it had to do with having this platform that I now have, because of the fact that people are curious about why I am not in the orchestra any more, and I assured Mr. B that while on church property I have been vague, but I was at the home of a couple, and no such restriction has been placed on me, to be silent about his matter when talking to fellow church goers, off premise. He seemed to go along with that.
One of the things I proposed in that meeting, was a modest proposal to send a messenger to the Convention to propose that no one who has more than one wife, should be asked to divorce any of his wives. His response was that there is no one like that, since polygamy is illegal. He was utterly clueless about the FLDS! I had to explain who they were to him! Of course the whole legal question keeps rearing its ugly head, and I had to address that. He told me I should talk about that with my representative, to get that changed. I didn't tell him that my representative is a hard left-leaning liberal, and that I don't feel comfortable doing that.
Well given that my wife expressed her opinions and concerns, I don't want to divulge too much of what took place there, because I know that God has to change her heart on this issue, but if and when she does come around, I don't want too much floating out there that could cause hurt feelings, but I pointed out one Logical Fallacy after another that he employed. He acknowledged that I know Scripture, probably better than he does, even though he is substantially older than I am. I told him that the folks over here at BF also know this issue from a Biblical perspective as well, and that we have pastors who have been expelled from their pulpits (I am seeing a good YouTube ad that we could put together to bring that to the average churchgoer's attention), and I pointed out that most people have never even considered this issue.
He used the "H" word ("heresy", that is) with me, but he then couched it with the "I think" qualifier. About three or four times, I told him that his opinion is only worth as much as it aligns with Scripture. I could have just come right out and said that I don't care what he thinks, but I didn't want to come off that way, but he didn't seem to understand what I was saying, so I had to repeat it, until I finally said that if you he is going to refer to it as heresy, he had better have some Scripture to back it up. I pointed out that this was the "Unsupported Assertion" Fallacy. He went back to Ephesians 5 to argue that Paul used the word "wife" in it's singular form, to which I responded that he was employing the Quantitative Shift fallacy. Another fallacy that was brought up, was the "Straw Man",... the old "Just because the Bible mentions polygamy", which is also a "Half Truth" fallacy, when you think about it. Of course I didn't let him get away with that.
We talked about truth, and how you cannot be in line with the truth when you are relying on one logical fallacy after another, and the fact that truth comes from God's Word, and the fact that he had not even attempted to use God's Word (of course aside from his misuse of Eph 5, which I pointed out was not about polygamy at all, but rather about how husbands are to treat their wives), but he dug in his heels, and said that I am not going to change his mind. I challenged him to show me Scripture that says that polygamy is wrong, and of course, he couldn't
We talked about debating this issue, and I pointed out that if any neutral unbiased observer had witnessed our discussion, they would have to agree with my position. I even mentioned the YouTube debate held with Pastor D and Pastor R, and how Pastor D wiped the floor with Pastor R, and how even an observer who claimed that they were hoping that Pastor R would win the debate, He is not interested in a debate. He says that my position is preposterous. One would think that if that were the case, his side should easily win hands down, and that God would use that to bring all of us in line with the truth. I told him that he knows that the anti-poly position would lose.
We talked about so many things, that I am going to have to cut this short, but I may come back and add some more, just for fun. I hope this has been instructive, and I will add more to the
Logical Fallacies Anti-Polys love to employ thread. This morning, the Lord impressed upon my heart to pray for the four ministers I have been in contact with, that He would speak to them. Our pastor had a sermon yesterday that was what I would consider heretical, and he tried to couch it as something that you should be cautious about, but I have no doubt he had this issue in mind when he preached it. He totally misapplied Col 3:15, in an effort to say that somehow, we can find truth by whether we sense peace about it. Of course my "Balderdash antenna" was up the whole sermon, and when he cautioned about using this as a tool to determine truth, I uttered a hearty "AMEN".
Last edited:
It is still a limitation on free speech. We will never get the current SCOTUS to hear this case though, so our best bet is through the legislative process. We may not get enough people to agree with us that polygamy is Biblical, but it is quite possible that they may be willing to go along with the notion that the current law is overreaching and should be amended. I think that if we started a petition drive near the state capitol, we could get some media attention, and that cannot be a bad thing.
Last edited:
I can't tell you how many eye rolls I got from Mr. B. He was completely flustered, but I did get him to agree with me on a few points that I made. I pointed out that our pastor had used a sermon illustration where he said that if he wanted to stay married a little longer, "change your clothes!" I told him that it is a bit extreme for his wife to demand that he change his clothes in the garage after mowing the lawn, and that I always change mine in the bathroom, and I said that I thought that our commitment to remain married, was based on our covenant that we made before God, not kowtowing to our wives demands! He didn't believe me though, but I told him that I went back and watched the service online. I used that to point out to Mr. B. how feminism has invaded the church. When he doubted me on that, I told him how I heard our tuba player talking with the associate worship pastor, telling him the keys to a successful marriage, was "I'm sorry! I was wrong! Yes dear! Whatever you say!" etc., and that this worship pastor was nodding his head right along with him. Somehow, these men sadly forgot to check their manhood!
Mr. B. agreed that the wife is to submit to her husband, but then fell back to that old "Submit to one another", retort, but I didn't let him get away with that. I pointed out that that verse is not about husbands and wives submitting to one another, but rather about to submitting to other believers. I told him that he is giving this "Submit to your husbands" passage, lip service. I could see him getting antsy when I said that. I would love to have had someone record that conversation! I would have put that on my YouTube channel, for sure! Mr. B. said that he and his wife never had an argument, and that this was because they compromised, but whenever there is a tie, he casts the tie-breaking vote. Well, of course in monogamy, there is always a tie, which he has stated this himself, so it is strange that he would throw that out there! I guess that is a handy reminder to the ladies, that their current or future husband, casts the tie breaking vote, even if he does have more than one wife.
Last edited:
Sometimes the husband must veto or cast an overriding vote even when he is out voted.
Which is to say, most of the time he just does what she wants and he wouldn't dare get upidy with her and argue.
I think most of these males must be afraid of their wives.
Excellent article that I had to add to the kol Israel series with some lead in commentary. I do not think we really understand how critical the practice of poly is for the survival of civilization. God regulated it in Israel precisely because it is the balancing element to maintain a thriving culture that does not disintegrate into debauchery.
https://natsab.com/2019/10/28/restoring-kol-israel-patriarchy-to-thrive-societally/
Well said, my friend!
Oh, I know they are! The truth shall set you free!
I told Mr. B that I was appalled to hear that so many couples in our church were going through marriage counselling. He nodded, but when I asked him why the divorce statistics in the church are not much better than outside the church, he replied that we have too many hypocrites in the church. I told him that that can't possibly account for the statistical similarity! We in the church should be somewhat different! There may be hypocrites in the church, but non-hypocrites should far outnumber the hypocrites, at least compared to the ratio of followers to Christ vs non-followers of Christ that are not in a church! I told him that by allowing wives equal footing with their husbands, and I understand that they are equal in inheritance as it talks about in I Peter, but by allowing this notion of equality in decision making, to invade the church, we have basically inverted the authority structure in the home. I really enjoyed watching him squirm when I said that.
Nathan, and you're probably going to say that's someone famous or something so it's irrelevant. Don't worry about the details, I'm talking a basic principle.
I have seen multiple occasions when people have shared a lot of information about their interactions with others on here, and then when the people being discussed found out how much had been said about them on a polygamy forum in public but without their knowledge, all hell broke loose and it caused a lot more damage to their personal relationships on top of the problems they already had in their lives. It is just a caution based on long experience. Feel free to disregard it.
This is a good conversation, I'm enjoying reading it. But I do feel the need to post a slight caution for your consideration.