Western Polygyny

[Anonymous]

Thanks Mary-ella for keeping us updated on the polygamy issue in B.C. !


A run down of events according to the blog:

http://looking-for-balance.blogspot.com ... ay-10.html


"Cross examine from BCCLA (Monique)

Would you agree that Canada is dominantly a monogamous society?

Yes.

Do you agree that Canada will not become a dominantly polygamous society?

yes

Are you not just creating a model and making predictions - is this not speculation?

All we can do is make a model, test it, and make predicitons.

Would you not agree that Canada makes definite steps to promote the ethos of human rights respect?

yes

Would you not agree that Canada invests a great deal to promote the well-being of children, education, etc

yes

Does this not impact the effect of how Canada would change if we de-criminalized polygamy?

It would depend on how the policies are formed.

Do you not agree that the priority on human rights that the institutions we have formed in Canada would have a social impact on the de-criminalization of polygamy in Canada?

I can’t speak to that.

Would it not be fair to say that it might be helpful to have a sociologist determine how Canadian institutions would impact the effects of polygamy in Canada? You are not a sociologist are you?

No but I have written many articles in journals of sociology.

In a country like Canada - we have a very specific culture and set of institutions that have a very high regard for equality etc. Would not this restrict a leap to polygamy?

We do not now all the factors involved, I want to agree with you but I don’t know.

Do you believe that Canadian women would abandon the rights that we now have and this would lead to a leap to polygamy?

This might not happen tomorrow - however, if Polygamy were decriminalized we don’t know what would happen in a 50 years period.

Monique: Do you believe that Canadian women would freely give up the rights that had to work so hard to obtain?

Dr, H. I don’t know

Monique; I would submit to you that we would not."

So folks, as I read this cross examination and then thought of some of the posts on this forum, would women give up their rights that we have worked so hard to obtain? Should I post some of the legalistic arguments of men and some of the misguided comments from women who believe that (in the name of submission) we should give up our rights?

How do we protect ourselves from falling into immoral and oppressive marriage practices?

Cat

 

[Scarecrow]

I think a lot of people do not realize what true feminism is. A visitor posted this to a blog by Jonathan Turley who is legally representing Kody and wives from "Sister Wives".

http://jonathanturley.org/2010/10/06/re ... more-27100

The visitor had this to say, and I find it a rather compelling read:

"J. Wight 1, October 18, 2010 at 4:40 am

I’m a mainstream Mormon and have alway been taught to shun even the appearance of condoning the polygamous lifestyle at all costs. I grew up in Oregon but now I live in the same Utah valley as the participants in this show. I’m an involuntarily-divorced father and over the past years I have come to reconsider the notion of polygamy, though I would never leave my church and will never do anything other than sympathize with many polygamous families. I now know polygamous families personally that are decent, down-to-earth, and loving families. The astounding fact everyone seems to miss is the caring, nurturing, and loving parenting that takes place with the children. This lifestyle is probably not for everyone, but if you think that this lifestyle is somehow deficient for the children involved, compared with neighbors and most families,who put their children in daycare for 10 hours a day, then you are simply deluded. No sober or sane perspective of these people, witnessing it first-hand, can come to this conclusion. The caveat here, of course, is that I’m talking about the non-criminal and/or non-abusive polygamous lifestyle. Everyone knows about the crazy and abusive polygamists, who operate and socio-pathologically thrive on the margins of a disenfranchised or outlawed culture–like so many other sociopaths who operate on so many different fringes of the marginalized populations of our societies. Because they can get away with so much on the un-monitored margins, sociopathic personalities will always be associated with such subcultures. However, you must look beyond the headlines and surface portrayals to understand a cultural choice such as this, just as you would for any alternative lifestyle.

I offer this with the following perspective: I was the primary caregiver for my children before my wife left me and took our children. I fought court battles for two years just to be able to watch my children during the day instead of having them in daycare for more than 10 hours per day. I have never been anything but a loving and completely devoted father to my children, and I live in a state which calls itself a “family values” state. Yet I could not prove to the state in court (or not yet, Mr. Turley, in case you’re reading) that a loving and fit father (with no dispute on this characterization whatsoever) is entitled to care for his children over institutionalized daycare despite the “inconvenience” it causes their mother. Really. That is the reason. I’m not making that up. The judges words were that my daily father care causes “too much shuffling of the children.” I would add that I live less than two miles from their mother. And the daycare is seven miles away. And I had to pay for the daycare, by law, to boot, even as I sat in my home office and yearned and ached for my children in such a way as words cannot describe. That is how entrenched daycare parenting is in our society. Something is wrong in the current state of family law and the presumptions it holds based upon notions of equality for women.

I studied feminist literary criticism in college; this is not feminism, and it never was imagined that real feminist notions of equality would ever lead us to this. Real feminism has been hijacked by bullies and entitlement-mongers and driven little girls away from their most important and essential of protectors–their fathers. I look forward to a progression that involves a truly equal partnering in the most fundamental and important work we have together between the sexes: parenting children. As I see it, the polygamists I know simply have a much healthier concept of this than anything currently in the “mainstream” society of family law or legal reasoning. I realize that many here will not like these words, but they are the truth."

 

[steve]

i'm sorry, maybe i am a little slow here. what rights would women actually be giving up?

both men and women give up some rights when they marry, staying self focused being kinda counterproductive.
ok, the first wife gives up the right of exclusivity when the couple embraces polygany. but women in general do not lose that right (if they marry monogamy-only husbands) just because the government makes polygany legal. of course, to be fair, the gov. would have to accept polyandry also?? what about the rights of all of the men when their wives can marry other men also :!: oh, my!

 

[Isabella]

I think it is one of those double blind things where antis try to put the worse case scenario onto everything. How many times have you heard some sort of ridiculous overreaction along the lines of 'If we do X it will lead to murder, mayhem and mass carnage never seen before....' of course when said X is passed or becomes generally commonplace, no such thing happens.

 

[Anonymous]

I didn't want to debate about feminism. That has been gone over and over on this board. As Christians we generally agree that feminists these days go overboard. What I am concerned about is this point:

Would we give up our rights in order to submit to our husbands as some husbands demand and some woman agree with?

“Jenan al-Ubaedey, one such woman, told The Times of London, "Look, I didn't make the law, God did, so it can't be changed. This is the way things are." Even when it comes to violence, she sides with Islamic law: "If you say to a man, you cannot use force against a woman, you are asking the impossible. So we say a husband can beat his wife, but he cannot leave a mark. If he does that, he will be punished." (Sura 4:34 in the Quran instructs Muslim men dealing with unruly wives to "admonish them, separate them in beds, and beat them.")”
Quote from 2011 WORLD Magazine
August 13, 2005, Vol. 20, No. 31

My heart sank when I read a post ON THIS FORUM about women thinking that they should not vote because they needed to submit to their husbands decisions in all matters. They trust their men. In a perfect world we could all trust that our husbands and men in general will love us like Christ loves His Church... humm too bad that we live in a fallen world.

I saw a post on this forum stating that an abused woman should go back and be beaten by her husband in the name of submission. I believe that men who tell a women (their sister in Christ) something like that should walk with her in her shoes... stand next to her every minute of the day and make sure that not one hair on her head is harmed. If only all men were that honorable. Instead they would look up from their Bible and tell her to return and be harmed all the while sitting upon their butts feeling holy. I pity them when they stand before YHWH and justify their hatred.

Most men on this board would never raise a hand to their wives... but folks we cannot bury our head in the sand. The degradation of women happens. Polygyny naturally (except in most circles of Christian polygyny which is a beautiful new movement) leaves women open to losing even their basic human rights. We do not worry too greatly about that fact in the West because women fought for our rights and secured equality and our security.

So folks, my question was would we give that away?

 

[steve]

Polygyny naturally (except in most circles of Christian polygyny which is a beautiful new movement) leaves women open to losing even their basic human rights.

i think that the reality is that islam leaves women open to losing even their basic human rights, not polygany.

yes, there are some christian men that are wrong. but that certainly is not confined to christian polyganous men, and if i could and should police them i would :x

please lets consider the rights of a women who would marry a proven righteous (yes, she can actually ask his wife what he is like behind closed doors!) man if she could find one

 

[Scarecrow]

"except in most circles of Christian polygyny which is a beautiful new movement"

Christianity itself was revolutionary at the time with the way it taught that women should be treated. It is unfortunate that due to the Roman influence and false "Christian" teachers most of those experienced and able to teach others how to appropriately live in a biblical marriage were eventually ostracized from the church. I discovered the biblical truth of marriage a little over two years ago and have seen those aware of it for a greater time talking about an awakening. I think we are part of a generation that will help bring the revealed truth of the Word of God to the forefront of discussions at the churches. With the divorce rate slightly higher among the "Christians" compared to the heathen community I think it is time for a wake up call throughout the modern church.

 

[Isabella]

i think that the reality is that islam leaves women open to losing even their basic human rights, not polygany.

That is not Islam Steve, that would be middle eastern cultural practice. One of the problems with some kinds of cultural imperialism is that not only has the religion been transported, but also some of the cultural mores which were common at the time. The regions now known as Pakistan and Bangladesh were not so backward when it was all part of Hindu pre- British Empire India. Middle Eastern culture and later Christian culture under the British empire, combined to eventually make Pakistan the hotbed of messed up religious fundamentalism it is today.

Christianity itself was revolutionary at the time with the way it taught that women should be treated. .

I think much could be said for Islam in that they did have rights for women enshrined in the doctrine that was greatly advantageous towards women that were oppositional and in fact, still oppositional to the culture of many of the peoples who were Islam-icised, that is what many Islamic scholars try to tell people that it is not Islam per Se, that is misogynistic, but the pervading culture, as the culture, religion and the law are so fundamentally intertwined now, many people can't see Islam for what was pre-Islamic cultural practice.

I think Moorish Spain and other countries invaded by the Moors found converts amongst women precisely because they thought that the rights given to women in Islam were better than what they enjoyed at the time, like the right to divorce their husbands (something banned under Christianity as you all know) and the right to keep their own properly (another thing banned). These were rights that were greatly attractive to women at the time, of course what has happened is that whilst in the west things moved forwards, Islamic nations (for myriad reasons) stopped moving, which is why, to our eyes, the Muslims seem positively medieval. The thing is, they were pretty progressive in medieval times, now??? Well not as much.

 

[steve]

no matter who messed them up, no matter how well intentioned it was earlier, i was speaking of present day islamic practices because that is what the current discussion is about

 

[Isabella]

no matter who messed them up, no matter how well intentioned it was earlier, i was speaking of present day islamic practices because that is what the current discussion is about

And I was pointing out, that many Muslims don't know where one ends and the other begins. Islam itself isn't anti women, no more than Christianity is. We have got to avoid broad generalisations that paint an entire religion either one way or the other. Especially when our exposure to said peoples happens to be biased towards a certain type.

B

 

[steve]

i am sure that you are right, please forgive me for ever thinking that a religion whose holy book defines the size of the stick with which to punish the wife is less than supportive of womens rights.

 

[Isabella]

I think you'll find that in a world where men were actually allowed to kill their wives, that was actually a step up.

Nice try though Steve.

 

[Scarecrow]

Matthew 19:7-8 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Not intending to start a debate on divorce, but this verse is one of many that led me to the conclusion that divorce is man made and not allowed by God. "from the beginning" (since time began), "it" (divorce), "was not so" (was not allowed). Moses "allowed" them to issue their wives certificates of divorce because of their hardness of heart. Upon further study it becomes clear that some men were physically, verbally, and emotionally abusing their wives and some even killing them as Isabella pointed out. Rather then have these women suffer under the torture of these men Moses allowed them to issue a certificate of divorce and send them on their way. Today the heathen community and many modern "Christians" divorce and remarry often as frequently as they change jobs.

Interestingly enough I have seen numerous times where Christians attempt to take the "hardness of heart" statement and apply it to polygyny. This of course is an obvious twisting of the scriptures and nothing short of a blatant lie.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

My heart sank when I read a post ON THIS FORUM about women thinking that they should not vote because they needed to submit to their husbands decisions in all matters. They trust their men. In a perfect world we could all trust that our husbands and men in general will love us like Christ loves His Church... humm too bad that we live in a fallen world.

CC,

The problem there is twofold. First, the man who is telling his lady not to vote is simply dead wrong, and he is probably under the spirit of anarchy, a deceptive idea philosophically speaking. If the man does not see the need to infiltrate the culture, but instead, to spatially separate he has not rightly understood his stewardship of grace where he is given this opportunity by the very grace of God so that he can spread the common love of grace through that process. Second, such a man is probably either a disciple of an anarchist non-gospel centered person or organization or is either not a disciple of any solid mature believer in the Lord.

But, I must say, that even so if a man does not want the lady to vote then she should not out of respect but in such case the man gets the honor of looking ignorant before his wife, and others, who probably has better natural instincts in the realm of common grace. And too, these are issues that need to be worked out before any covenant union ever takes place. If a woman knows from the Bible that it is important to use the civil process as a means to do good to all, as Gal 6:10 and other verses tell us, if she meets a man who is not in agreement with that portion of the Bible then it needs to be dealt with.

I saw a post on this forum stating that an abused woman should go back and be beaten by her husband in the name of submission. I believe that men who tell a women (their sister in Christ) something like that should walk with her in her shoes... stand next to her every minute of the day and make sure that not one hair on her head is harmed. If only all men were that honorable. Instead they would look up from their Bible and tell her to return and be harmed all the while sitting upon their butts feeling holy. I pity them when they stand before YHWH and justify their hatred.

Let me speak here for us as an organization. We DO NOT believe such and any man who tries to use that is evil and is using the law of God for unholy purposes. There are such men out there who want to use the NO DIVORCE NO REMARRIAGE LAW for a woman to try and oppress a woman so that she feels like God will not allow her to ever be released under any circumstances.

A man who abuses his wife is showing signs of being an unbeliever. The woman is to be loved and if she says to the man you will no longer beat me and if you do I'll use the proper means to stop it and if he does not comply he can and should be prosecuted by the state. Then the woman ought to tell the man that she will not be in that type of relationship. If he cannot live with her under those guidelines then if he departs from her it shows that he is not willing to live with a believer in the basic stipulations of what a covenant means and he is to be treated at that point as an unbeliever forward. And according to 1 Corinthians 7 if the man lives like an unbeliever and he chooses to leave because he cannot comply with the basic rule given to him (by the spiritual authorities over them or by the lady's personal stand that is backed by spiritual authority) then at such a point the lady is released and is not under bondage because the man has been called upon to repent, to turn from his sin, and if he does not then Matthew 18 is the process. Once the process has been used the person is then to be treated as an unbeliever until he shows repentance.

But part of the problem is that many men are disassociated from any religious leaders and they are anarchists. Some women are too but the man as a leader ought to set the tone. This hurts the woman too because she has no protection or leaders to go to to get help with such evil, nasty, and ungodly things begin to happen.

Here at BF we do not and will not condone such a position from anyone. Violence is evil, corrupt, and is a sign of unbelief because of the sin of anger dominating the heart and mind. If confronted and one does not repent and will not change then discipline either through religious leaders (Matt. 18) and/or civil justice ministers (Rom. 13) is to be used.

Let me say this to any ladies reading this post as well. Please do all you can to make sure the man you might unite with is a peaceful, non-wrathful, mature man. See if he will place some accountability standards in place so that if he does something wrong on an ongoing basis that you cannot fix among yourselves that there is another set of spiritually mature leaders that you and he have already agreed to who can be called to step in and provide spiritual help, even physical help if needed! Matthew 18 applies to all people who are believers.

Thus, every couple, every family, who truly is humble, realizes they may need outside help at some point. Any man or woman who says they do not ever need help by another is simply a prideful person. Voluntarily together choose a set of people that you agree with to be the go to people in case you run into something you as a family cannot come to agreement upon. This is what Matthew 18 requires of every believer. Those who will not follow this rule are not following the teachings of Christ and they show a serious sin of pride at work in their heart and life.

Most men on this board would never raise a hand to their wives... but folks we cannot bury our head in the sand. The degradation of women happens. Polygyny naturally (except in most circles of Christian polygyny which is a beautiful new movement) leaves women open to losing even their basic human rights. We do not worry too greatly about that fact in the West because women fought for our rights and secured equality and our security.

CC, it sounds like you were a fly on the wall at the retreat. One speaker mentioned the need for there to be spiritual oversight to believers in this movement. He was right! Many of the people entering this movement have no guidance and spiritual leadership over them. Sometimes they desire this because they have no pastors over them to guide them because their local shepherds have rejected them and this idea. Some, however, could have it in other places and they reject it. They like to be independent, anarchists, people who have no connection to anyone other than themselves. Some men like to set themselves up as gods, as if there is no one above them except God. That type of thinking is dangerous and often proves itself to be foolish when problems arise and destruction hits the family hard due to such an idea.

You are right it does happen and this is something this organization is going to be talking about more in the months to come. And by all means if you have suggestions please do share.

Here is this blessed land we have the blessings of a two fold sphere: civil justice authority and spiritual authority, both of which are a form of God's love.

But some women do not like to call on the Civil justice ministers because that is sometimes not the best first step or even when it is this system is limited to what it can do because that system does not go to the root of the problem, the sin the person is clinging to which is causing the problem.

This is why it is so important to have systems in place with accountability. If these systems in place are godly systems then families can be preserved, and in some cases where someone was truly lost and unsaved but deceived they can be brought to grace in Christ for the true first time and the union be set on a new foundation that can provide many new blessings which could have never been there otherwise.

So folks, my question was would we give that away?

My guidance to all ladies is NO! You do indeed become under the functional head of a man when you unite with him. But my suggestion is that you find a man who will not try and be a god unto himself as if he is on an island with no accountability to anyone else. Find a man who truly believes in the gospel and in the community of faith. If he does not see his need to have others in his life then you would likely be placing yourself in danger as the man is not willing to be connected to the body of Christ. And in some cases the man is not eager to be conected to any body because he himself is not truly connected to the head of the body.

With every day there are more and more people turning to see this truth in Scripture and there are more and more believers who can be called upon to provide help when the couple or family hits a problem larger than they are able to handle together.

Maybe the better term instead of giving up rights is properly placed or positioned covenant promises where the partners agree as to how they will handle problems and what is to be done if one or more party is not willing to abide by those promises. It is not about OUR RIGHTS but instead it is about WHAT IS RIGHT and about the stewardship principles of being right under the obligations of grace which lead us to desire to do what is right.

Dr. Allen

 

[Isabella]

I don't understand your point Scarecrow, Islam is a different religion and divorce is allowed under Sharia law.
Their religion post dates Christianity so quoting your scripture is hardly proof of what God wills is it?

It is proof only to a Christian, not to a Muslim.

Dr Allen, nice post!!!

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Thanks Isabella.

Speaking of proofs....are you ready yet to investigate the scientific proof we have that validates/verifies our faith that Christ has truly arisen from the Grave and is God in the Flesh?

I'd love to discuss that with you as you reason through the material.

Dr. Allen

 

[Scarecrow]

Sorry Isabella. It was my understanding that Muslims affirmed what we call the Old Testament in which Moses allowed men to divorce their wives, but I may be wrong. In any case this predated Islam by over a thousand years. Jesus was simply stating that Moses allowed it, and I explained to the best of our knowledge why he allowed it. I am not a student of Islam, but I will say that if it allows divorce (between two believers) it makes me question its validity just as I question the validity of the Christian churches teaching the same thing.

 

[Isabella]

Thank you Dr. Allen but no thank you, I don't deny that there might be proof as such, I just deny that it holds any particular meaning to me, but I certainly am very happy to hear that it does so much for you fine people.



Scarecrow, no Muslims allowed either partner to divorce the other, under Judaism only a man was allowed the divorce.

That was what made it revolutionary to women.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

I just deny that it holds any particular meaning to me

Well it does hold meaning to you and for you even if you may not percieve or realize it. All of us will die one day and then meet our Creator.

One day you will see Christ, the risen Lord, face to face and give of an account as to what you have done with him, i.e. whether you know him as Lord and Savior or not.

I care deeply for you and would be totally hurt not to have you with us in eternity. You have a good intellect and wonderful personality and if you were to come to Christ for salvation it would even magnify you more in Christ and give us so much more joy knowing you are then truly a part of our family in the bonds of grace and forgiveness.

Search your heart sister and think about it.

Ask yourself this. "What do I have to lose if I examine it? If it is not true then what have I lost? But if it is true that Christ is truly God in the flesh, i.e. Lord, and if I miss that what might that mean for me forever?"

I pray you will consider this deeply and not take offense to the offer here. The offer to examine the gospel is because of love and our desire to see you find the wonderful forgiveness of sin and true freedom and life that our Lord spoke about (John 10:10).

 

[Isabella]

I just deny that it holds any particular meaning to me

Well it does hold meaning to you and for you even if you may not percieve or realize it. All of us will die one day and then meet our Creator.

I pray you will consider this deeply and not take offense to the offer here.

Hi Dr Allen,

Please don't worry, I don't get offended easily. I am concerned though that despite the fact that I have made it quite clear that I don't hold the same beliefs as you do, you can't perceive that your reality doesn't have an effect on me, so, even though you truly 'know' that x will happen to me, this is not reality as I know it. Because of this, emotive language has very little effect on me, I am not a 'lapsed' anything, nor am I a person 'seeking' anything. There is nothing missing in my life, I am grateful for all the knowledge that I have gained about your beliefs from being a part of this forum and I hope everyone on the forum knows that they have my utmost support regarding their way of practising Polygamy.

kind regards,

B
x