-
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.
Judge says traditional marriage was poly.
- Thread starter pebble
- Start date
The judge boldly pointed out that the facts of traditional marriage do not support the defendant's one-man-one-woman position. This is hardly a failure to support polygamy (which wasn't her job here anyway).
She cut off at the knees anyone who cites tradition as a reason for opposing polygamy, and she did it in a very public manner. I could hardly be more pleased.
The judge isn't advocating for the state's presumptive position on polygamy, just acknowledging it. Let's not lose sight of the fact that she ruled against them.U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb said:
She cut off at the knees anyone who cites tradition as a reason for opposing polygamy, and she did it in a very public manner. I could hardly be more pleased.
Last edited:
I agree with mystic and JAG that this is a good thing.
There are only two ways we can go with this. One is that the secular government gets to tell people who they can and can't marry. The other is that the government stays out of it. We either stand for liberty for all, or we stand for a "forever war" among different factions of the population that have different ideas of how other people should be allowed to live their lives. I vote for liberty for all.
I slogged through the judge's opinion in two parts, last night and this morning (88 pages of legal prose is NOT bedtime reading unless you're actually trying to put yourself to sleep). Three things worth mentioning:
On pp 15-16, the judge develops an argument that recognizing the political liberties of a group is not the same as endorsing their choices. If we have a protected right to marry whom we choose, then everybody else does too, and we have to get our minds around that if we are ever going to have legal protection and social acceptance. I was told recently that the Brown family has taken flak from some folks because part of the reasoning in their case was based on Lawrence v Texas, the case striking down Texas's sodomy law. Like it or not, our situation has political similarities to that of the homosexual community, and those similarities can be exploited and learned from. They are way ahead of us culturally and politically, so any gain they make in the courts is a gain for us, and any loss for them is a loss for us.
Does everybody get that that is not a pro-homosexuality argument? It's a pro-liberty argument. The obvious analogue is the usual free speech thing, "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend your right to say it."
Second thing: The part discussed above, about the judge's reference to traditional marriage (pp 66-67), is a good example of how this is supposed to work. As I read it, there is no comment one way or the other about polygamy per se, the judge is simply exposing a logical weakness in the defendants' argument. There is no implied criticism or promotion of polygamy, just a kind of legal chuckle at the defendants' expense.
OTOH, I'd argue that polygamy is not a different kind of marriage from monogamy, and that each relationship with a wife is a separate, countable marriage. If you are a man that has one child or ten children, you are "a father". If you have one wife or ten wives, you are "a husband", and you have "a marriage" with each wife. So there's more that could have been said about what "a marriage" traditionally is and why it should be that way, it's just that the defendants didn't do a very good job of saying it. Wouldn't have changed the outcome, they just wouldn't have gotten teased about their simplistic appeal to tradition.
Third thing: The opinion gives us a roadmap on page 83. In discussing the "slippery slope" argument (that permitting same-sex marriages will lead to polygamy and incest (as if those two belonged in the same category...)), the court says that polygamy and incest are distinguishable because they "raise concerns about abuse, exploitation, and threats to the social safety net". We have to address those concerns, and as I see it, there's a Catch-22 that we have to overcome.
Those concerns are legitimate in the case of marginalized groups (typ FLDS) that become closed, closeted societies; in the case of modern, urban polygamy that is pretty normal and social in all respects save the number of women in the family, those concerns are not as legit. So how do we demonstrate that? It will require more stable, non-abusive, non-exploiting poly families to come out of the closet. But most of those families are not inclined to come out of the closet while the legal and cultural sanctions are so heavy. So we have a chicken-and-egg problem to solve.
The court also mentions that there is a distinction between a ban on same-sex marriage and restrictions on marriage that are justifiable (such as number and family relationship, presumably). Based on the reasoning of the court and the comparison of same-sex marriages to cases involving mixed race couples, prisoners, and persons behind in their child support, I don't think that one will hold up. From the pov of the woman seeking a mate, she should have as much liberty to choose a married man as to choose a prisoner, a man of another race, or a man that's not current in his CS payments. And telling that woman she's still free to marry, just not the man of her choosing, is not any more of a "restriction" on marriage than telling a lesbian she's still free to marry, as long as it's to a male and not a female.
That argument is based on reasoning in the opinion that I'm not repeating here. I think it would stand up, though. The key for us is to distance ourselves from that stereotype of poly families as 'abusive, exploitive, and a threat to the social safety net'.
There are only two ways we can go with this. One is that the secular government gets to tell people who they can and can't marry. The other is that the government stays out of it. We either stand for liberty for all, or we stand for a "forever war" among different factions of the population that have different ideas of how other people should be allowed to live their lives. I vote for liberty for all.
I slogged through the judge's opinion in two parts, last night and this morning (88 pages of legal prose is NOT bedtime reading unless you're actually trying to put yourself to sleep). Three things worth mentioning:
On pp 15-16, the judge develops an argument that recognizing the political liberties of a group is not the same as endorsing their choices. If we have a protected right to marry whom we choose, then everybody else does too, and we have to get our minds around that if we are ever going to have legal protection and social acceptance. I was told recently that the Brown family has taken flak from some folks because part of the reasoning in their case was based on Lawrence v Texas, the case striking down Texas's sodomy law. Like it or not, our situation has political similarities to that of the homosexual community, and those similarities can be exploited and learned from. They are way ahead of us culturally and politically, so any gain they make in the courts is a gain for us, and any loss for them is a loss for us.
Does everybody get that that is not a pro-homosexuality argument? It's a pro-liberty argument. The obvious analogue is the usual free speech thing, "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend your right to say it."
Second thing: The part discussed above, about the judge's reference to traditional marriage (pp 66-67), is a good example of how this is supposed to work. As I read it, there is no comment one way or the other about polygamy per se, the judge is simply exposing a logical weakness in the defendants' argument. There is no implied criticism or promotion of polygamy, just a kind of legal chuckle at the defendants' expense.
OTOH, I'd argue that polygamy is not a different kind of marriage from monogamy, and that each relationship with a wife is a separate, countable marriage. If you are a man that has one child or ten children, you are "a father". If you have one wife or ten wives, you are "a husband", and you have "a marriage" with each wife. So there's more that could have been said about what "a marriage" traditionally is and why it should be that way, it's just that the defendants didn't do a very good job of saying it. Wouldn't have changed the outcome, they just wouldn't have gotten teased about their simplistic appeal to tradition.
Third thing: The opinion gives us a roadmap on page 83. In discussing the "slippery slope" argument (that permitting same-sex marriages will lead to polygamy and incest (as if those two belonged in the same category...)), the court says that polygamy and incest are distinguishable because they "raise concerns about abuse, exploitation, and threats to the social safety net". We have to address those concerns, and as I see it, there's a Catch-22 that we have to overcome.
Those concerns are legitimate in the case of marginalized groups (typ FLDS) that become closed, closeted societies; in the case of modern, urban polygamy that is pretty normal and social in all respects save the number of women in the family, those concerns are not as legit. So how do we demonstrate that? It will require more stable, non-abusive, non-exploiting poly families to come out of the closet. But most of those families are not inclined to come out of the closet while the legal and cultural sanctions are so heavy. So we have a chicken-and-egg problem to solve.
The court also mentions that there is a distinction between a ban on same-sex marriage and restrictions on marriage that are justifiable (such as number and family relationship, presumably). Based on the reasoning of the court and the comparison of same-sex marriages to cases involving mixed race couples, prisoners, and persons behind in their child support, I don't think that one will hold up. From the pov of the woman seeking a mate, she should have as much liberty to choose a married man as to choose a prisoner, a man of another race, or a man that's not current in his CS payments. And telling that woman she's still free to marry, just not the man of her choosing, is not any more of a "restriction" on marriage than telling a lesbian she's still free to marry, as long as it's to a male and not a female.
That argument is based on reasoning in the opinion that I'm not repeating here. I think it would stand up, though. The key for us is to distance ourselves from that stereotype of poly families as 'abusive, exploitive, and a threat to the social safety net'.
So is it likely that judges and law makers will rule, because people are now wanting same sex marriage, that it is now time to allow polygyny also, in order to be fair and not hypocritical? No. Look at the laws for polygyny in most countries. Most have laws that allow it, but ONLY for Muslims. No fairness there, just blatant hypocrisy and double standards. No polygyny if you are a Jew or Christian. Christian countries and even Israel, have unjust laws against their own self-proclaimed faith because of their monogamy laws. These countries are shooting themselves in the foot by adhering to these laws and allowing Muslims to multiply like they are. YaH says He hates double standards. It's very possible and more likely the outcome of this homosexual marriage thing will be that every type of abominable "marriage"
will be allowed, EXCEPT polygyny for those who believe in the bible. Why do I think that? Satan comes to kill, steal, and destroy. He kills the babies of those who hold to the bible (abortion/Pharaoh/King Herod), tears apart biblical families through divorce and false teachings on marriage and divorce, and tries to prevent more lives from being added to families who adhere to the Bible by making polygyny illegal and encouraging birth control. The enemy is against life, and against multiplication of lives, especially those of the book. This is why homesexuality and such marriages are being legalized, because it prevents life and it destroys lives and families. Why do you think the Muslims are allowed to have more than one wife? People fear them, and because the bible says that those who claim to believe in the bible, but don't do what the bible says, will die by the sword. He says one punishment against disobedience is that He will send our enemies against us. Truly we have sinned against Him and deserve this punishment. Our hope of a future depends on whether we will be willing to repent of our sins and return to ALL of His ways and judgements, not just polygyny. There is no forgiveness of sins without repentance, turning from sins. If we seek first the kingdom, all the rest will be added unto us, including wives and children. Notice one of the blessings for obedience is multiplication and life. What we are seeing in the courts is simply proof that the bible is true, and that this nation needs to repent of injustice and all kinds of sin.
will be allowed, EXCEPT polygyny for those who believe in the bible. Why do I think that? Satan comes to kill, steal, and destroy. He kills the babies of those who hold to the bible (abortion/Pharaoh/King Herod), tears apart biblical families through divorce and false teachings on marriage and divorce, and tries to prevent more lives from being added to families who adhere to the Bible by making polygyny illegal and encouraging birth control. The enemy is against life, and against multiplication of lives, especially those of the book. This is why homesexuality and such marriages are being legalized, because it prevents life and it destroys lives and families. Why do you think the Muslims are allowed to have more than one wife? People fear them, and because the bible says that those who claim to believe in the bible, but don't do what the bible says, will die by the sword. He says one punishment against disobedience is that He will send our enemies against us. Truly we have sinned against Him and deserve this punishment. Our hope of a future depends on whether we will be willing to repent of our sins and return to ALL of His ways and judgements, not just polygyny. There is no forgiveness of sins without repentance, turning from sins. If we seek first the kingdom, all the rest will be added unto us, including wives and children. Notice one of the blessings for obedience is multiplication and life. What we are seeing in the courts is simply proof that the bible is true, and that this nation needs to repent of injustice and all kinds of sin.
While I don't doubt that it would be Satan's intention to allow everything *except* polygyny based on the Bible, let's not give him more power or credit than he's due. God's plans trump all others. In a recent article or two posted elsewhere, surveys have shown that acceptance of poly has risen like, 9% over the last six years. Now don't get me wrong, I think many forms of polyamorous unions will be legalized along with Biblical polygyny, but people are going to do it anyway, so that's not really an issue for me.
enlargeourtents said:
Very yes.
I mean I think I agree with every syllable of what you wrote here, but very yes to this bit especially.
Yeah, I whole-heartedly agree that YHUH is in control and that satan can only do what YaH ALLOWS him to do. I guess what I am trying to say, is that if so many other countries have no problem with their double standards in allowing polygyny for Muslims but not those who hold to the bible, and the fact that the government and courts are so corrupt, which is just a reflection of the spiritual state of the people that put those judges in place, it's looking pretty likely that the same double standards will be put in place in our country, ESPECIALLY since that IS what the bible says. So if satan can only do what YHUH allows him to, our question should be, WHY is YHUH allowing all these double standards regarding marriage in governments and courts? The fact is, this nation has really gone downhill morally, and it's only going to get worse. The corrupt courts can not be trusted to judge righteously when they are constantly being bribed and threatened to rule on the side of wickedness due to an overwhelming amount of spiritual lawlessness in the people. Our only hope is to trust YHUH, not man, and to repent of our sins individually so that we, as individuals can be in His protection. Really, to me, the only law that really matters concerning marriage is YaH's law, so it really doesn't concern me anyway. I guess we all feel that way, as we wouldn't be seeking additional wives in this country if it did really matter to us what a judge says, would we?
I think the time has definitely come that we now have to practice civil disobedience in order to practice Christianity.
For many centuries, communities of Christians have existed in Muslim countries, and among themselves they wished to enforce monogamy.
So the two groups maintained harmony and their own identities by living each under their own laws. This is not what we're used to in Western countries such as the United States, but also not unusual throughout history.
The noted historian Bernard Lewis wrote that Muslim emigrants to the West have hoped to receive similar latitude:
If so, then are they being denied polygyny because of a belief to which they hold? Yes: their own belief that the Bible teaches monogamy.
So the two groups maintained harmony and their own identities by living each under their own laws. This is not what we're used to in Western countries such as the United States, but also not unusual throughout history.
The noted historian Bernard Lewis wrote that Muslim emigrants to the West have hoped to receive similar latitude:
I've heard of Christians complaining about polygyny, but not because they weren't allowed to take part, and it appears that they themselves are behind the monogamy laws under which they live in Muslim countries. That is, they got those laws because they wanted them.
If so, then are they being denied polygyny because of a belief to which they hold? Yes: their own belief that the Bible teaches monogamy.
Last edited:
ZecAustin, I disagree about the civil disobedience. Are you speaking of rioting, war, militias against the government? While I would agree that the authority we need to obey first is the Bible, I would disagree that fighting the government or voting is the answer. Wouldn't the powers that be and the Muslim sleeper cells in this country just love it if we did rise up and caused chaos and brought this government down! Look at Iraq, look at Syria, look at Egypt. Has our removing their corrupt governments and putting new ones in place led to anything but more terror and oppression?
I believe faith and obedience to the bible is our answer, that individuals who endure until the end, even in the face of persecution and pressures to turn away from what is commanded by the bible, will be the only ones who will be saved, all those who call upon YHUH, as the Bible says. We need to obey the bible, educate the others on what it says and encourage them to obey it as well, while the government topples itself. It is guaranteed it will fall eventually, and the more wicked it becomes, the more likely it will come with speed, but I don't see that we need to be involved in its downfall in any way other than prayer that the true justice of the bible be restored.
Is Christianity worth fighting for? Just as the courts and governments are corrupt, isn't likewise modern day Christianity just as corrupt? We keep talking about the pope and the Catholic church's fault in degradation of society, but, ummm, there are an overwhelming number of "Christians" that are promoting gay marriage, even "ministers", "priests", and "pastors" are marrying them, and some of them are entering into gay marriages and relationships themselves. Let's face it, the Bible hasn't been preached in the churches for the last 2000 years. The Catholic church, when it began, created a new religion that took many of the teachings of the bible, and mixed them with pagan, idolatrous, worship of other gods, customs of the nations, in a way to create a one world religion with Rome as the head. History repeats itself, and what Rome is doing now is nothing new, its doing what it has always done since it began. There is nothing new under the sun. There were many true believers in the bible, often called Jews by the church, but were the Jewish and Gentile believers in Messiah the New Testament speaks of, who were killed, persecuted, and scattered across the world throughout history because they tried to adhere to the whole truth in the bible. These saints were worn down by the beast and forced to assimilate or face death. If they did not want to die as martyrs or be expelled from their country, they had to put down the calendar and holy days of the bible which went by the sun AND the moon, see Gen 1:14, Psalm 104:19, and they were required by the church to adopt the newer Roman Gregorian calendar of Jan-Dec and Sun-Sat or Mon-Sun, depending what part of the world they were in at the time.
Ever been to Mexico? Have you seen the murals and artwork depicting what happened there in the Spanish Inquisition? Do you understand what happened during that time? This also occurred during the Christian Crusades in the Middle East. What about the holocaust when "Christians" and "Jews" were killed by Hitler? The catholic church has always had a history of persecuting and killing Jews. But why those they called Christians? Because they helped the Jews hide, is one reason, we are told. The protestant Christian church is called protestant because they protested the catholic church and its doctrines, but mainly the papal head. It still held to much of the paganism brought in by the Catholic church, such as celebrating the ancient pagan fertility festivals of xmas and easter that are not found in the bible, that Messiah never celebrated. They held to these things and stayed away from Passover and other holy days the bible commands, as the Catholic church required. The Catholic church still sees itself as head of the protestants, since the protestants kept so many of the Catholic errant doctrines that go against the bible, and because the protestants chose to stay with the Roman calendar and worship on Sun-days, a practice the Roman church started.
Who first enjoined Sunday keeping by law?
Constantine the Great.
"The earliest recognition of the observance of Sunday as a legal duty is a constitution of Constantine in 321 A.D., enacting that all courts of justice, inhabitants of towns, and workshops were to be at rest on Sunday (venerabili die solis), with an exception in favor of those engaged in agricultural labor." Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., art. "Sunday".
By what church council was the observance of the seventh day forbidden and Sunday observance enjoined?
The Council of Laodicea, in Asia Minor, fourth century.
Does the papacy acknowledge changing the Sabbath?
It does.
The Catechismus Romanus was commanded by the Council of Trent and published by the Vatican Press, by order of Pope Pius V, in 1566. This catechism for priests says: "It pleased the church of God, that the religious celebration of the Sabbath day should be transferred to 'the Lord's day. Sunday.'" Catechism of the Council of Trent (Donovan's translation, 1867), part 3, chap. 4, p. 345.
"It [the Roman Catholic Church] reversed the Fourth Commandment by doing away with the Sabbath of God's word and instituting Sunday as a holiday." N. Summerbell, History of the Christian Church (1873), p. 415.
What part of the law of God has the papacy thought to change?
The Fourth Commandment.
"Catholics alledge the change of the Sabbath into the Lord's day, contrary, as it seemeth, to the Decalogue; and they have no example more in their mouth than the change of the Sabbath. They will needs have to be very great, because it hath dispensed with a precept of the Decalogue." The Augsburg Confession (Lutheran), part 2, art. 7, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Harper), vol. 3, p. 64.
What power has claimed authority to change God's law?
The Papacy in Rome.
"The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even Divine Laws...The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth." Translated from Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca (Ready Library), "Papa", art. 2.
"The observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the [Catholic] church." Monsignor Louis Segur, Plain Talk About the Protestantism of Today (1868), p. 213
How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays?
By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church." Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p.58 (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris [1916 ed.], p.67)
So by observing Sunday, is the protestant church holding to its own creed of "sola scriptura", the Bible is the only authority?
"The Gregorian calendar, also called the Western calendar and the Christian calendar, is internationally the most widely used civil calendar. It is named for Pope Gregory XIII, who introduced it in 1582.
The calendar was a refinement in 1582 to the Julian calendar amounting to a 0.002% correction in the length of the year. The motivation for the reform was to bring the date for the celebration of Easter to the time of the year in which it was celebrated when it was introduced by the early Church. Because the celebration of Easter was tied to the spring equinox, the Roman Catholic Church considered the steady drift in the date of Easter caused by the year being slightly too long to be undesirable. The reform was adopted initially by the Catholic countries of Europe. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox countries continued to use the traditional Julian calendar and adopted the Gregorian reform after a time, for the sake of convenience in international trade."
Gregorian calendar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The calendar used by most of the western world before the modern day Roman Gregorian calendar, was the Julian calendar named after Julius Caesar which was instituted by himself in 46 BC. It was an 8 day week calendar, not a 7 day week. Neither Saturday nor Sunday are the true, "Lord's Day" or seventh day Sabbath commanded in the bible. The original seven day week commanded in the bible and kept by the Jews and Messiah in His time was the lunar week, before the Romans destroyed the Temple and the Jews were forced into exile where they were killed or assimilated into the Catholic church. We actually had a deceased family member who died a Catholic pig farmer, he was a Spanish Mexican, a g-grandfather, who often was in trouble with the church. He would bless his children in Jewish fashion, and against the church's command, He read His bible and prayed. A Jewish kippa was recently found amongst his things, and the Jewish star of david has been found on the headstones of graves of our Spanish/Mexican catholic ancestors. He was a cryptic Jew, as his ancestors were forced into Catholicism or faced death.
"I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." Hosea 2:11
"He has done violence to His tabernacle, As if it were a garden; He has destroyed His place of assembly; YHUH has caused
The appointed feasts and Sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion.
In His burning indignation He has spurned the king and the priest." Lamentations 2:6
Those who are being called are coming back to the Father and back to the biblically appointed times and Sabbaths that our Messiah Yahusha (some call him Jesus) kept in the New Testament.
I believe faith and obedience to the bible is our answer, that individuals who endure until the end, even in the face of persecution and pressures to turn away from what is commanded by the bible, will be the only ones who will be saved, all those who call upon YHUH, as the Bible says. We need to obey the bible, educate the others on what it says and encourage them to obey it as well, while the government topples itself. It is guaranteed it will fall eventually, and the more wicked it becomes, the more likely it will come with speed, but I don't see that we need to be involved in its downfall in any way other than prayer that the true justice of the bible be restored.
Is Christianity worth fighting for? Just as the courts and governments are corrupt, isn't likewise modern day Christianity just as corrupt? We keep talking about the pope and the Catholic church's fault in degradation of society, but, ummm, there are an overwhelming number of "Christians" that are promoting gay marriage, even "ministers", "priests", and "pastors" are marrying them, and some of them are entering into gay marriages and relationships themselves. Let's face it, the Bible hasn't been preached in the churches for the last 2000 years. The Catholic church, when it began, created a new religion that took many of the teachings of the bible, and mixed them with pagan, idolatrous, worship of other gods, customs of the nations, in a way to create a one world religion with Rome as the head. History repeats itself, and what Rome is doing now is nothing new, its doing what it has always done since it began. There is nothing new under the sun. There were many true believers in the bible, often called Jews by the church, but were the Jewish and Gentile believers in Messiah the New Testament speaks of, who were killed, persecuted, and scattered across the world throughout history because they tried to adhere to the whole truth in the bible. These saints were worn down by the beast and forced to assimilate or face death. If they did not want to die as martyrs or be expelled from their country, they had to put down the calendar and holy days of the bible which went by the sun AND the moon, see Gen 1:14, Psalm 104:19, and they were required by the church to adopt the newer Roman Gregorian calendar of Jan-Dec and Sun-Sat or Mon-Sun, depending what part of the world they were in at the time.
Ever been to Mexico? Have you seen the murals and artwork depicting what happened there in the Spanish Inquisition? Do you understand what happened during that time? This also occurred during the Christian Crusades in the Middle East. What about the holocaust when "Christians" and "Jews" were killed by Hitler? The catholic church has always had a history of persecuting and killing Jews. But why those they called Christians? Because they helped the Jews hide, is one reason, we are told. The protestant Christian church is called protestant because they protested the catholic church and its doctrines, but mainly the papal head. It still held to much of the paganism brought in by the Catholic church, such as celebrating the ancient pagan fertility festivals of xmas and easter that are not found in the bible, that Messiah never celebrated. They held to these things and stayed away from Passover and other holy days the bible commands, as the Catholic church required. The Catholic church still sees itself as head of the protestants, since the protestants kept so many of the Catholic errant doctrines that go against the bible, and because the protestants chose to stay with the Roman calendar and worship on Sun-days, a practice the Roman church started.
Who first enjoined Sunday keeping by law?
Constantine the Great.
"The earliest recognition of the observance of Sunday as a legal duty is a constitution of Constantine in 321 A.D., enacting that all courts of justice, inhabitants of towns, and workshops were to be at rest on Sunday (venerabili die solis), with an exception in favor of those engaged in agricultural labor." Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., art. "Sunday".
By what church council was the observance of the seventh day forbidden and Sunday observance enjoined?
The Council of Laodicea, in Asia Minor, fourth century.
Does the papacy acknowledge changing the Sabbath?
It does.
The Catechismus Romanus was commanded by the Council of Trent and published by the Vatican Press, by order of Pope Pius V, in 1566. This catechism for priests says: "It pleased the church of God, that the religious celebration of the Sabbath day should be transferred to 'the Lord's day. Sunday.'" Catechism of the Council of Trent (Donovan's translation, 1867), part 3, chap. 4, p. 345.
"It [the Roman Catholic Church] reversed the Fourth Commandment by doing away with the Sabbath of God's word and instituting Sunday as a holiday." N. Summerbell, History of the Christian Church (1873), p. 415.
What part of the law of God has the papacy thought to change?
The Fourth Commandment.
"Catholics alledge the change of the Sabbath into the Lord's day, contrary, as it seemeth, to the Decalogue; and they have no example more in their mouth than the change of the Sabbath. They will needs have to be very great, because it hath dispensed with a precept of the Decalogue." The Augsburg Confession (Lutheran), part 2, art. 7, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Harper), vol. 3, p. 64.
What power has claimed authority to change God's law?
The Papacy in Rome.
"The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even Divine Laws...The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth." Translated from Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca (Ready Library), "Papa", art. 2.
"The observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the [Catholic] church." Monsignor Louis Segur, Plain Talk About the Protestantism of Today (1868), p. 213
How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays?
By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church." Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p.58 (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris [1916 ed.], p.67)
So by observing Sunday, is the protestant church holding to its own creed of "sola scriptura", the Bible is the only authority?
"The Gregorian calendar, also called the Western calendar and the Christian calendar, is internationally the most widely used civil calendar. It is named for Pope Gregory XIII, who introduced it in 1582.
The calendar was a refinement in 1582 to the Julian calendar amounting to a 0.002% correction in the length of the year. The motivation for the reform was to bring the date for the celebration of Easter to the time of the year in which it was celebrated when it was introduced by the early Church. Because the celebration of Easter was tied to the spring equinox, the Roman Catholic Church considered the steady drift in the date of Easter caused by the year being slightly too long to be undesirable. The reform was adopted initially by the Catholic countries of Europe. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox countries continued to use the traditional Julian calendar and adopted the Gregorian reform after a time, for the sake of convenience in international trade."
Gregorian calendar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The calendar used by most of the western world before the modern day Roman Gregorian calendar, was the Julian calendar named after Julius Caesar which was instituted by himself in 46 BC. It was an 8 day week calendar, not a 7 day week. Neither Saturday nor Sunday are the true, "Lord's Day" or seventh day Sabbath commanded in the bible. The original seven day week commanded in the bible and kept by the Jews and Messiah in His time was the lunar week, before the Romans destroyed the Temple and the Jews were forced into exile where they were killed or assimilated into the Catholic church. We actually had a deceased family member who died a Catholic pig farmer, he was a Spanish Mexican, a g-grandfather, who often was in trouble with the church. He would bless his children in Jewish fashion, and against the church's command, He read His bible and prayed. A Jewish kippa was recently found amongst his things, and the Jewish star of david has been found on the headstones of graves of our Spanish/Mexican catholic ancestors. He was a cryptic Jew, as his ancestors were forced into Catholicism or faced death.
"I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." Hosea 2:11
"He has done violence to His tabernacle, As if it were a garden; He has destroyed His place of assembly; YHUH has caused
The appointed feasts and Sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion.
In His burning indignation He has spurned the king and the priest." Lamentations 2:6
Those who are being called are coming back to the Father and back to the biblically appointed times and Sabbaths that our Messiah Yahusha (some call him Jesus) kept in the New Testament.
Agree that the time for civil disobedience is already here in some small ways (for instance ignoring state laws on marriage and doing what is right regardless), and is likely to become more and more relevant over the next few years. Slumberfreeze's definition is spot on.
Adam, just thought I should point out, since keeping Torah is clearly a very important issue for you, that there are a wide range of views on this forum. There are certainly a few who will agree 100% with your last long post and be silently cheering you on from the sidelines. But also many others who would disagree. We are Christians from many different denominational backgrounds, drawn together by an understanding that plural marriage is acceptable, outside that topic our views are as diverse as the remainder of the Church. This is a good thing, God is doing a great work here in bringing the Body together in unity of purpose despite differences, unlike the majority of the church who seem to schism over the tiniest issues like music styles. Please feel free to discuss other matters, I'm not discouraging you, it's how we all learn from each other. I'm glad to see your passion here. I just thought I should point out that you must not assume everyone has come to plural marriage through the same doctrinal route as yourself, so don't assume that just because people accept plural marriage they will also believe X,Y and Z.
Adam, just thought I should point out, since keeping Torah is clearly a very important issue for you, that there are a wide range of views on this forum. There are certainly a few who will agree 100% with your last long post and be silently cheering you on from the sidelines. But also many others who would disagree. We are Christians from many different denominational backgrounds, drawn together by an understanding that plural marriage is acceptable, outside that topic our views are as diverse as the remainder of the Church. This is a good thing, God is doing a great work here in bringing the Body together in unity of purpose despite differences, unlike the majority of the church who seem to schism over the tiniest issues like music styles. Please feel free to discuss other matters, I'm not discouraging you, it's how we all learn from each other. I'm glad to see your passion here. I just thought I should point out that you must not assume everyone has come to plural marriage through the same doctrinal route as yourself, so don't assume that just because people accept plural marriage they will also believe X,Y and Z.
Back to this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8vedbht4rl9h2 ... e.pdf?dl=0
Couldn't agree more. I think it's actually a very deep long running scheme of Satan (obviously allowed by God). My deeper thoughts on this are at the below link. This article was circulated in a Biblical Families newsletter some time ago, I reformatted it as here following the Irish marriage referendum. You may find it thought provoking.enlargeourtents said:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8vedbht4rl9h2 ... e.pdf?dl=0