• 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.

Legalizing Christian Polygamy

"What they're doing is trying to get Utah to recognize existing law and the recent judicial decisions of Texas. The only reason the local police began an investigation, is because of outside pressure since the Browns revealed themselves to the world. If and when public opinion changes in regards to PM, will it be possible to legalize PM."

They want Utah to realize that it is unconstitutional for them to prosecute people for bigamy and polygamy based on the Texas sodomy ruling. I think they will accomplish this. The State argued that Kody and family do not have standing in their case because they were not charged with anything, but the case will go ahead because Kody and family have the right to live in peace without being investigated without cause. Once the Texas ruling is recognized and the Utah bigamy and polygamy laws are struck down then another group will file suit to have their polygamous marriages recognized. A change has already happened in the general public. There is still the religious right wackos but they have lost a lot of political clout. The general public tends to have more of a "Well it's not for me, but if it works for you why not?" kind of attitude. Legalizing polygamy will come through the courts regardless of public opinion.
 
lutherangirl wrote:
I wish it would be that easy to change people's hearts.
Click to expand...
And did I not write (emphasis added):
(Of course, only God can change a person's heart, but He uses us to proclaim the Truth that He will work with to bring about that change.)
Click to expand...
I'm not saying we should stop our efforts to change the laws, but that our primary focus should be proclaiming the Truth of God's Word, including the fact that the Bible really does allow, regulate, and in some cases, require, polygyny. Maybe God is calling some who believe in true Biblical Family Values to work within the political system and get the laws changed, but He is calling all of us who are born-again believers to share the Gospel message. And as one 19th century evangelist said, "Use words if you have to." (Was that Moody? Not sure.)

Our primary focus in proclaiming God's Truth should be first, salvation-oriented, and second, discipleship-oriented. (You can't disciple someone unless they are saved!) And, if you read some of my posts in other threads, you know that I believe polygyny might just be one way to keep our kids from leaving church and running from God when they graduate from High School. (Fatherlessness is a discipleship issue, and in many cases, it's a salvation issue for the kids, since the father, not the mother or the church, is given the responsibility to train kids in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.) In my Dissertation, I referenced one of Josh McDowell's books (Battle Cry for a Lost Generation) in which he said that more than 80% of our kids leave church after High School. Last Sunday, I heard Dr. Jerry Pipes, the guest speaker at the church I was visiting in my effort to find a new place of worship, say that McDowell is now saying 91%.

Based on my limited experience and observation, as well as what McDowell said in the book I referenced, the reason for that is because most kids either have no father at all, or they have a father who doesn't care, which can be worse than none at all.

So, IMHO, plural marriage in our churches would help to solve that problem. What we have been doing for the past 900+ years is not working. What the nationally-known evangelical leaders (as well as nearly all local leaders) want to do is more of what we have done for those 900+ years! Why not return to the Biblical model? The Church has had way too much of the traditional family values that those leaders promote. Those pagan traditions are destroying us from within. It's time for Biblical Family Values.

(Please pardon my ranting and raving...)
 
Dr. George,

Our primary mission is indeed to make disciples in Christ.

And too, polygyny (private relations between a man and multiple women, [not wives]) is already legal and allowed by case law. What is illegal is plural marriage in the sense of seeking legal endorsement. As you know from the conference terms are important. The term marriage is not the same as cohabitation or a private love union which is what took place in the biblical era and in Roman classical law era that existed in concurrence with the NT biblical era.

Probably the best thing that can happen in the biblical perspective is for the government to become a secondary party instead of a primary party to love unions (whatever kind they take form in). By that system the people could form their own legal cohabitation contracts which the courts could interpret and apply and enforce upon dissolution if the people needed outside assistance.

A full fledged push to get government to define, endorse, and govern the process is first not the system we find in the Bible, as those unions were always private in nature and non-legal in nature and also commenced by the families or individuals and not through a legal system, especially not through a licensure system as we know of it today.

If the private cohabitation contracts were more defined and more accepted by the government for all types of unions then things like finances, and other related matters could be more easily resolved. That is largely the reason why so many push for that so if one dies the other can receive benefits, assets, etc. But if private relational contracts systems are received more systematically at all levels of government it would do several things:
(1) Move the idea of "marriage" or love unions back to the free market or private sphere (where it was until the 6th to 7th century)
(2) Stop all of the political battles between the feds and states over definitions as it would be out of their hands and the people would decide what to call their unions (just like people decide the name to their own child or name to their business).
(3) If private contracts were the uniform system it would resolve asset issues and allow people to transfer rights, property etc with ease upon someone's death.
4. It would require people to be more responsible in the preparations of their unions as they would have to actually plan, think about, and write out their contract/covenants.

Legalization is more about what is the best way to do so. Some theologians advocate to make "polygyny" another licensed system within the existing marriage system. Other theologians, however, see that route as a continuation of placing something that was originally in the private sphere within the public sphere's control. It is a classic issue between how much involvement should the government have in one's personal life. Those who advocate the full legalization methodology often embrace the idea that we can reconstruct a moral system through the government. But along with that then comes the ongoing fight to weed out any type of love union that we differ with or that differs with the bible. The logic of that system leads also to the idea that we should also weed out all religions that do not worship the one true God and thus the goal of repealing the 1st amendment would be the logical goal of those in that persuasion. Other theologians, however, are content to give freedom to all so long as those exercising their freedoms do so with full mutual consent. This ideology position affirms that it is an innate right given by God for all people to be able to freely associate as they so see fit and that God even gives people the right to believe and act in the wrong. It thus logically supports the 1st amendment and accepts the fact people may worship God, not worship God, or even worship the wrong god and do so in a civil and free way.

The right to associate with another human adult through voluntary consent is something supported by the "right to peaceable assembly." How this plays out in the future will continue to evolve. Time will tell which route it leans toward but as it appears right now the privitization goal seems to have much in its favor at this point both theologically as well as in the common cultural trends where more and more people tend to form cohabitation unions outside of the marriage systems. Thus theologically and culturally it appears that is the movement. Now how the political process moves is another matter altogether and one I'm not going to venture into. Time will let us know.
 
Dr. Allen's previous post gives some good and valid answers to issues that concern most people that read this forum. I see one major roadblock to the successful implementation of this proposal. It is the same roadblock that assails several other ideas for improvement of the status of plural marriages. That roadblock is INSUFFICIENT CHARACTER on the part of men and women interested in plural marriage. One of the reasons we have so much state involvement in marital issues is because far too many men and women have not been people of character. People that were men and women of their word. People that understood what truthfulness was and what commitment was. People that would stay in a relationship and give their all to make it work. People that would not cut and run when things became difficult. People that were willing to sacrifice their own personal well-being for the well-being of their family. Too many men are not willing to put in the hard work and sacrifice that leadership requires for a solid marriage. Too many women are unwilling to assume the blessed role designed by God for godly wives. Independence, pride, self-sufficiency and an unwillingness to trust their man in the same way they profess to trust God (but really don't).

I am persuaded that no man can honestly call himself a godly Christian man if he will not step up to the plate and take the reins of leadership for his family. I am also fully persuaded that no woman can honestly call herself a godly Christian woman if she will not fully submit herself to her husbands authority and leadership. When this topic is broached the first thing that comes up in discussion are the examples of possible exceptions to the rule of patriarchy, and they usually start with "but what if". May I charitably suggest that we forget about the exceptions until they actually arise and be busy about the doing of patriarchal living. Raising the "but what ifs" is really the work of weak Christians who have not yet fully committed themselves to the gracious love and mercy of God. Fear is taking hold of their hearts and paralyzes their spirit. It always takes courage to serve God. Plural marriage will never be normal until the Christians involved are Christians first, each spouse fulfilling the role God has designed for them. I believe the world, government bodies and institutions are right to regulate what people will not regulate themselves. Where character fails, government fulfills a God ordained role of regulating. We will never persuade anyone but perverts, of the benefits of plural marriage until we produce a body of men and women being the men and women of God, reflecting His character and His glory.
 
Dr. Allen wrote:
And too, polygyny (private relations between a man and multiple women, [not wives]) is already legal and allowed by case law. What is illegal is plural marriage in the sense of seeking legal endorsement. As you know from the conference terms are important. The term marriage is not the same as cohabitation or a private love union which is what took place in the biblical era and in Roman classical law era that existed in concurrence with the NT biblical era.

Probably the best thing that can happen in the biblical perspective is for the government to become a secondary party instead of a primary party to love unions (whatever kind they take form in). By that system the people could form their own legal cohabitation contracts which the courts could interpret and apply and enforce upon dissolution if the people needed outside assistance.
Click to expand...
Others who have posted in this thread have mentioned the fact that most cult leaders who are convicted are not convicted of violating the bigamy laws, but rather, of other offenses such as child abuse, spousal abuse, and welfare and tax fraud. Those crimes are not limited to polygynists, but the so-called news media reports on such cases in polygynous households (and cults) as if polygyny is responsible for those crimes, and generally ignores the same crimes when the perp (or alleged perp) is a monogamist. Maybe that's because child abuse, spousal abuse, and other such crimes are so common among monogamous households that they are not considered "newsworthy."

Pastor John wrote:
I am persuaded that no man can honestly call himself a godly Christian man if he will not step up to the plate and take the reins of leadership for his family. I am also fully persuaded that no woman can honestly call herself a godly Christian woman if she will not fully submit herself to her husbands authority and leadership...
...I believe the world, government bodies and institutions are right to regulate what people will not regulate themselves. Where character fails, government fulfills a God ordained role of regulating.
Click to expand...
John, I think you have hit the nail on the head. And that's why our beloved government regulates us from the cradle to the grave, and that regulation is increasing, not decreasing. Many things that we would think are simple "common sense" (which seems to be rather uncommon!) are regulated by Federal law. For example, don't you think that it makes sense to be sure that your brakes, lights, and other safety equipment actually work properly before driving your 80,000-lb. truck on the road? Especially when your livelihood, your own life, and the lives of others who share the road with you depends on that equipment working properly. Yet, so few truck drivers were giving their rigs a proper pre- or post-trip inspection that it is now Federal law to do so!

And it seems to be a downward spiral. People allow the government to regulate some area of our lives, and will not do anything that the government does not require. So the government obliges us and enacts another boatload of laws.

Why does a single mom need a husband when she has Uncle Sugar to dole out a bare minimum subsistence for her and her kids? And if she has more kids, the dole is increased. So we see things like what the Barna Group reported a few years ago, where 79% of mothers from 18 to 22 years of age in the churches are unmarried.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

The real issue is nothing other than sin.

We who think of ourselves as being men of God need to make sure that we really are Godly men.

We will never persuade anyone but perverts, of the benefits of plural marriage until we produce a body of men and women being the men and women of God, reflecting His character and His glory.
Click to expand...
Sad, but true. And the perverts are the last ones we want to see being involved in plural marriage!

IMHO, we in the USA have the best form of government in human history. But our government at any given time is no better than the men we vote into office for that time, regardless of how good the system of government might be.

For families, both monogamy and polygyny are God-ordained. But any given family is no better than the man and his women, regardless of how righteous the family structure might be. And society is no better than the families that corporately make up that society.

We get the type of governance that we, as a society, deserve.

So let's change society, one heart at a time...remembering, of course, that only God can change a person's heart, and we are nothing but instruments in His Hands to help bring about that change.
 
John Whitten said:
I see one major roadblock to the successful implementation of this proposal. It is the same roadblock that assails several other ideas for improvement of the status of plural marriages. That roadblock is INSUFFICIENT CHARACTER on the part of men and women interested in plural marriage. One of the reasons we have so much state involvement in marital issues is because far too many men and women have not been people of character. People that were men and women of their word. People that understood what truthfulness was and what commitment was. People that would stay in a relationship and give their all to make it work. People that would not cut and run when things became difficult. People that were willing to sacrifice their own personal well-being for the well-being of their family. Too many men are not willing to put in the hard work and sacrifice that leadership requires for a solid marriage. Too many women are unwilling to assume the blessed role designed by God for godly wives. Independence, pride, self-sufficiency and an unwillingness to trust their man in the same way they profess to trust God (but really don't).
Click to expand...

BINGO !!!!!!!!!!

Blessings,
Fairlight
 
here we are as bother and sister fighting about word says. we all have study what many phds have come up with. no not trying to conform to this world. but the bible says to study and show thyself approved. SO, i picked through the laws regarding homosexuality and it's legality in the States. Most laws have been changed by majority rules. we can sit around and wait, or let the so-called orthodoxy of the churches rule.
The 11th century, the Jews did exactly what the so-called Christians of that era did. Then sat around waiting for hearts to change. They ended up the minority. Obviously our Lord has brought us together because he wants the truth to be told. We can choose to be like the rest and wait upon a movement or we can follow what Christ has said. For 10 years I have been studying this topic trying to find the truth from the biblical and historical standpoint. God allowed it, but we bow down and let man's whims rule. Nowhere in the bible does it state that Man can over-rule God, this is what we all to often do with our customs, laws and traditions.
 
Scarecrow said:
One of the fronts of our war may be conceding...The bigamy charges may be plea bargained down and the constitutionality of the bigamy laws not challenged after all...

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2011/se ... ens-cases/
Click to expand...

You don't have to accept plea bargains though, do you? I guess because there are other offences they are charged with they are more likely to accept.

B
 
The article states that the attorneys are meeting soon to discuss a plea deal. I think Texas is attempting to thwart any effort to challenge the bigamy laws and will ofter him some miniscule charge without jail time and a minimal fine to do just that. Being older and probably having his fill of the whole thing it is likely that he would take it.
 
my thing is DR PHILL is state on his show that all who are in polygamy are doing illegal thing.That we are all like worn Jeff I think that is name. He state we will all have little 12 and 14 year girl no we do not want government in our life but we do want to be able to live the way the word state :o
 
lutherangirl said:
I think I found an answer to the question of how to get Christian Polygamy legalized. It seems like once a "professional" group of scientific experts put their stamp of approval on something by researching and testing, the world believes their discoveries even if it trumps what Scripture says. For example, now that the experts say people are born homosexual the world and the some of the churches believe it and finds ways to change the laws for gay marriage, etc. So, I say we group up with these "experts" and have them do some research on our community here and make a reality show about us. Since the world seems to need scientific proof of why people do what they do and is hooked on reality shows, we might make a dent in getting legalized. Our trump card is we are practicing/believing in a form of marriage that was Biblical correct. Remember how Ruth had to masquerade herself to save the Israel nation. Well, I guess this is kinda what we would have to do.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, Lutherangirl. A scientific study that yields good results would help. Some here have objected to this because they disagree with scientific studies that conclude that gays are born that way, but even if scientists are wrong on gays that doesn't mean they will be wrong on poly people or on everything else. If you don't trust science even when it doesn't involve a sin then stop seeing your doctor.

I believe there are already studies out there that shows polygamy can work. I have a book on jealousy from Dr. Ayala Pines - I have to wait till I get home and then I'll edit this post and mention the book title. Dr. Pines talks about a study done on swingers and reports how they experienced little jealousy. Some swingers even enjoy their multiple partner sexual encounters. To me this shows, theoretically (if a mental therapy program can be designed - like those to overcome phobias, etc), that jealousy can be conditioned to where it is not triggered as much even in multiple partner relationships. And that's in part because these swingers perceive multiple sexual partners as not being a threat to their relationship. Learning about this and using it FOR GOOD is one reason why I don't object to studying polyamorists and swingers, because it does not take doing what they do or the wrong that they do in order to get some good out of it.
 
I've seen another post on this forum regarding a utube video about our lifestyle on BF. I think now is the time to get Christian polygyny out in the public. I mean with the Brown Family and now the Dagger Family are leading the way, it's time for the Christians to speak up. My daughter thought we were converting to the Mormon Faith. I'm sure others think this, too, since polygamy has been so far removed from the Christian family. To my knowledge (which is not vast by any means :lol: ), polygyny was more of a "Jewish" thing, too, right?
 
Most of the early Christians were Jews. It was practiced at the time Jesus walked the earth and after. There are very few records of it apparently because it was commonly accepted so there would be no need of mention. The Apostle Paul taught "When in Rome do as the Romans do" essentially meaning not to behave in a way that would offend - not to practice their culture. The Romans were strictly monogamous so it is likely that Paul would have suggested to marry only one wife so as not to offend. This would maximize the effect of the gospel.
 
When we speak of making something legal I get uncomfortable until that is defined.

If by that it is meant to remove the legal obstacles that sometimes are still on the books and are still used to suggest it is illegal then yes that is a good route. But if by that we mean creating a new set of laws to grant the government the authority to confer upon adult humans the right to join another adult human then I see that as a digression and not an advancement in the right direction.

It has been accurately stated that by giving the government the right to create the terms and definitions for legal marriages that such has now led us to where we are with state approved homosexual marriages. That is a system that can be used in making us all honor unions that not all support.

A better way would be to return to the ancient system itself on this one. Keeping love unions in the private sphere and not in the public sphere is a system that works for all people. It does not make any one group have to officially recognize another group through the state process. It keeps government neutral in the dealings of human to human relations and it keeps the government from officially endorsing any one, two, or three or however many groups and thus risking discriminating against group four five or six or whatever in number.

Our system works well with religious institutions. A person in this country can establish any type of peaceable faith, church, religion, etc. They need no governmental approval to do so. The same plan for peaceable assemblies in human to human relations would be ideal.
 
Dr. Allen,

I'm following what you are saying regarding keeping love unions out of government control all together; however, the churches and the government would loose too much money to agree on letting things go back to being separate on this issue of marriage. Therefore, if we take your approach, the battle might be longer than just allowing polygamy to be legalized through the government?

Scarecrow,

Isn't it interesting that you say the Romans were monogamous; however, they had tons of sexual affairs going on. So why in the right mind of the church would they fall into the "monogamy" only rule when the example was so tainted by the Romans?
 
Hi lutherangirl,
I would happily encourage you and everyone else to read "Thelyphthora" by Rev. Martin Madan. It is a three volume work published first in the 1780's by an Anglican (Methodist) minister, a friend of John & Charles Wesley as well as George Whitfield. It is the very best work I have found to date regarding what has happened to marriage and how it came to be. He also puts forth the very best Biblical evidence for the permissiveness of plural marriage and its benefits. It is available on Amazon or some of it is on Google books. I count my copies as my favorite books beside my Bible.
 
Therefore, if we take your approach, the battle might be longer than just allowing polygamy to be legalized through the government?
Click to expand...

Great question and I'm so glad you asked. First, Actually the legal framework is already in place for it to be deregulated. The Lawrence V. Texas case overturned the longstanding Bowers case out of GA in the early 80's. By that case it gave to us a legal standing that private sexual relationships for consenting adults is a right all people have now through the due process clause of the 14th amendment which incorporates the 1st amendment to all states. By that it means all people have the right to assemble peaceably together now and private sexual unions is an assembly. It was a 6 to 3 decision and by most legal scholars is considered a landmark decision.

Second steps towards deregulation is much easier than creating new regulations.

Third, the general stream is for homosexual unions but not so much for poly unions when that has to be taken through Congress. Often you hear of a constitutional amendment to define a union. The support in that sense is nowhere near the margins needed to accomplish that route.

Fourth, look at the legal scholars of our land today. One of the most brilliant Constitutional Lawyers of our era is Jonathan Turley. As you can see from how he is approaching his case in Utah he is approaching it under the deregulation private sphere route. That approach reveals that the leanings of current thought are oriented in this direction now. He is not asking for the govt. to recognize the relationships as a "marriage," rather he is asking that the government recognize the right for people to assemble in private relations however they see fit so long as it is peaceable and among adults who have 1st amendment and 14th amendment rights. As I understand it he is following after the line of thoughts presented in the Lawrence V. Texas case. That case outlined four key issues that they stated: (1) Government is not sovereign in all spheres and should not be omnipresent in the home where sexual relations take place with adults. (2) Private relationships like what was discussed in that case are not asking for State Endorsement. (3) The individuals involved were adults and could make consensual decisions as adults. (4) As it was these adults could refuse and there was no coercion or fraud involved.

Thus, that is the most common type of reasoning today among the populace. Thus, it seems like to me the river or stream is already running this way as is and thus that seems to be the avenue that God's providence is working. Trying to reverse that appears to me to be counter productive as well as trying to swim upstream against a wave of providence that seems to already be paving a way for deregulation. And of course that direction aligns very well with the environment in which the 1st century believers functioned in and underneath. Therefore, I see that as a good place to work towards within our current climate.

Fifth, the American bar Association is a massive house of lawyers from all regions of the nation. This organization has some of the brightest intelligentsia from the legal profession within it. They have produced a massive document in which they voted on as a legal body that outlines the reasoning as to why the so-called sex crimes by adults need to be removed from the law books and decriminalized. Also too in the case of Lawrence V Texas they filed a massive brief as to why consensual sex among adults should no longer be criminalized. So they as a major legal organization are calling for the deregulation route.

Sixth,there is a massive legal document known as the American Model Penal Code. This sets forth a well reasoned position on how to make a more uniform standard in criminal law. It has become one of the better known pieces of literature of legal scholarship. It is used throughout many states as guide in how to make more uniform and reasonable laws in various areas. It seems to suggest as I understand it that the so-called adult consensual sex crimes are no longer a valid and reasonable act that deserves criminal prosecution.

Seventh, current sociological standards in communities are already in this position. Even in some of the most conservative states of the union there is now a considerably high degree or rate of people cohabitating without being legally married through a licensure system. The latest polls through the national census shows how fast this is growing. More and more people are choosing to cohabitate together without the endorsement of a government entity granting them a license. Though not all of this is done in and with holy motives or reasons as some purposefully intend for it to be a temporal union, there are some who join together and though may not very articulate about it they believe and desire for the relationship to be permanent. Sometimes of course it is not but even those who go through the marriage licensure system fail at it too and it is not permanent. In either case this sociological phenomenon reveals the general tide of the current climate. More and more people are coming to see that people can join together without a legal system or even a ceremonial system and in the NT era there was neither a legal system over unions nor per se a clear cut and defined ceremony (though there were at times some or some type of celebration in some cases but not all). With the rise in tide of this it reveals again that the drift of the culture is more towards the deregulation mode than the legal government regulation mode.

I hope that helps shed light on why the deregulation route is indeed likely to be the quickest and most feasible route at this junction in history.
 
Pastor Whitten & Dr. Allen,

Thanks guys for the information regarding the books and explanation of the cases going on out in the world. Now, you both have to promise to come to my families rescue and speak on our behalf if we get into trouble with this whole poly marriage. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top