The Final Feast and Spirit Led Polygamy

[NetWatchR]

I gave to agree with Andrew regarding Justin here. His posts have been primarily a spring board to direct traffic to his own site. A lot of his stuff just does not sit right with me.

And that drive-by statement about being censored here... When has anything been censored that wasn't worth censoring? I've seen even the most questionable topics become locked to keep it from going too far or moved from the public area to the private section but rarely archived. If it is, there's a reason for it.

"and that's all I got to say about that. "
-F. Gump

 

[FollowingHim]

I am in full agreement with Andrew, Steve and Ylop on this matter. (Curtis, I think you're taking personal offence where none was intended and heading off down a completely different track to everyone else in the conversation.)

I have no problem with the concept of "love at first sight". I agree with Michael / Justin that it could also be a spiritual connection. I actually got on very well with my wife from virtually the moment I met her, and we'd seen each other very few times before we were dating.

I have a major problem with Michael's suggestion (as quoted above by Andrew) that this could be an indication the first marriage was outside God's will and thus justification to divorce the first wife. This is self-justifying logic that is clearly contradicted by Jesus Himself as I have already cited. It could be used to justify virtually anything.

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions

The only text Michael offers to back up the idea that sometimes God commands divorce is Ezra 9-10. But even here, read it carefully. NOWHERE does God command ANYONE to divorce! The people realise they have sinned (which they have), and Ezra prays and confesses their sin. Then while he's doing this some bloke by the name of Shekaniah has the bright idea that they should fix the situation by divorcing their wives (Ezra 10:2), and everyone goes along with it. God didn't tell them to do it, they decided to themselves, and nowhere are we told whether God agreed or disagreed with their choice. This can be no justification for anything. But even if God DID command it, this situation is miles from the situation of a modern Christian man who is thinking "maybe I married the wrong woman the first time" as others have outlined.

Michael, I am always open to debate on theology, I welcome it. Look all over this forum to see me discussing theology calmly with many people. If I wasn't open to debate I wouldn't be discussing this matter, I'd just have deleted the entire thread to remove all mention of your views. However on this site I will also always be intolerant of anything that appears to be clear encouragement to or justification of sin. Matthew 18:6. The readership of this forum ranges from those deeply versed in theology like the men who have replied to this thread, to people with very limited knowledge of scripture, and I must ensure that they are not led astray.

 

[andrew]

Dear Andrew,

You are right, what I am saying is being a bit misunderstood. I will try to explain better. I apologize for my slow reply because all my messages must be assessed by the moderator before they will be posted.

I don't know why I didn't see this earlier. Maybe it has to do with the moderation thing.

I just read the post from "Steve." All I did is post a small announcement that I had updated my site and that I would be traveling to Africa again soon if anyone wanted to come along. So, Steve, in that regard I did want to give opportunity for those so interested to do so. However, another person who took issue with something written on my site, took the liberty to voice his object to my writings here, on this site, on this posit as opposed to just replying on my site. I told him that I welcomed him to comment on my posts on my writings but that I thought it might be a better to do so than there than on this particular post. However, others started posting replies to this person comments here and so we have a full blown discussion on a tread that has nothing to do with it.

"All I did". "Took the liberty". Poor JM....

This has gone on long enough. Here's what really happened:

You were allowed back on the site after one disruptive experience, and the first thing you did was post another link to your site and invite people to check it out and maybe go to Africa with you if they were interested. So one of the group here actually goes to your site and checks it out (that's what you wanted, right?), and then calls you out on something he sees that doesn't sit well with him.

Freeze frame. If you are here to function as a part of this group, then you are welcome to post links to interesting sites, including your own, which the group will then discuss here, if there's anything worth discussing. If you fault people for discussing the site here, and expect them to follow you over to your site to discuss the contents, then you are basically confessing your agreement with the accusation above that your motive for being here is to market your site, not to be a functioning member of this community.

Therefore, Steve, no, I am not trying to do anything but share my undated site with people here on this forum. What is causing the back and forth here is that people cannot tolerate a different point of view on the subject of marriage even though they want the whole world to understand their point of view on polygamy.

What I am beginning to sense, is an intolerant attitude from some who cannot bear to have anything they hold dear questioned. The more I state my case, however politely, the more they seem to want to make this not about theology but about something more personal. I am almost feeling spiritually bullied at this point and wonder if I should just keep quiet about this particular subject (that I did not bring up) rather than ruffle the feathers of the those who take exception to what I am saying.

It strikes me as odd, that those who want to challenge the very foundation of normative Christian marriage with further truth on marriage cannot find it in their hearts to consider what I say without brow beating me like others do to them.

This is a load of horse-hockey—take your hurt feelings and your false accusations and go home. If you don't like having your writing challenged, stop writing. If you don't like having your website read, quit inviting people to read it. If you don't want people at BF to talk amongst themselves about your writing, quit posting links to your site here. But you don't have the right—you haven't earned it—to come in here and call people to your site and then whine about how mean those intolerant bullies are being to you when one of us actually goes to your site and brings something back for us to discuss.

With this in mind I think I will bow out of this thread so I do not stumble those who are not able to hold such a discussion without become agitated. My intent was never to make this an issue here but others seem bent on doing so.

Yes, please do the gracious thing on behalf of this group of immature emotional retards and just leave. Your condescension is just digging your hole deeper....

It doesn't matter whether you meant to or you're just clueless. What matters is that you will not defend your writing that you came here and invited us to check out, but instead play the bully card while at the same time complaining that we didn't post our comments on your own site, as if that would have made a difference. SMH....

In the future, if someone has questions about anything I write I would definitely encourage them to comment of the particular essay on my site or simply email so that we can carry on a discussion in those more appropriate venues.

One question I would like to ask: Do you moderate anyone else but me?

Sincerely,

Justin

JM, I have no history with you and no beef. But sometimes, when you don't get along with a group of people, it's not them, it's you.

For you to come here and ask people to check out your site and then pout about a challenge to your writing that you have yet to respond effectively to is one level of problem. For you then to go personal and accuse the whole group of spiritual and emotional immaturity—while steadfastly not responding effectively to the challenges—is a whole 'nother level of dysfunction, and it suggests that you have problems with your motives for being here. If this group is so far beneath you that we just can't handle the wisdom of your teaching, then maybe you just shouldn't be here.

 

[andrew]

And that drive-by statement about being censored here...

Yeah, that stuck with me, too, and I wasn't going to call it out, but since you mentioned it.... (and "drive-by statement" - nicely put!)

JM, comments such as this one (you also made a couple of others later in the thread) suggest that whatever the problem is here, you're not the innocent victim. You obviously are coming into this with a chip on your shoulder that is going to be as much a part of the problem that has to be solved as anything that you think is going on on the other side. And I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, brother, but the way you're posturing yourself as the victim and everybody else as the bullies isn't helping your case, it's hurting it. You'd do better to restrain those comments, because they come across as snarky and self-serving.

There isn't a person here that wouldn't welcome a response from you that does a better job of explaining why you think LAFS would be a legitimate reason to rethink whether you should stay married to your existing wife. Or a response that says that's not what you meant, and here's what you should have said. But to get all petulant about how you're being mistreated, while getting all condescending about how we "just can't handle the truth" (Jack, anyone?...), is lame. Ultimately I don't know if you'll be censored as much as just ignored.

Hoping and praying for better things....

 

[andrew]

At this time I intend to pray about this matter and see what God would have me believe.

I would also at this time call Nathan to add to this discussion since it is him this mostly pertains to in regards to whether someone is accepted on this board or not. If he does not want to respond publicly than Nathan you can PM me directly and straighten me out, I will take your non response as sign you don't like me either.

Brother, you know I love ya, but I think you're missing this one. Last I heard, Nathan was in California on business and more or less out of touch. Meanwhile, Samuel really is the moderator and has Nathan's full backing on what goes on here on the site.

And really, this has the structure of one of those "if you really loved me, you would ______" deals, which is almost always a setup for an unhappy ending. I just don't think you're taking this in the right direction.

However, I trust the spirit of God in you to give you wisdom and guidance. Do what you gotta do.

 

[Anonymous]

Dear Andrew,

Do you really want me to explain my theological position or do you just wish to run me down personally? If you are open for me to engage in honest discussion I am all for that. from reading your last post is seems like you just want me to keep silent or leave. This is a damned if you, do damned if you don't type of situation. On one hand if I defend what I believe because others are challenging my ideas I run the risk of being viewed as contentious and therefore being banned. On the other hand if I do not defend my position others are free to challenge my viewpoints without rebuttal.

I would submit to you and everyone else here that I have done my very best to present what I believe in a polite and respectful manor. I have given scripture references to back up my ideas so that others may search the scriptures an see if these things be true. I have been drawn into an increasingly contentious discussion by some who seem to want to tear down what I believe without wanting me to defend my position. Suggesting that I leave is not debate but simply dismissal.

My point about those who wish to shut out my point of view while expecting the world to change their point of view on normative christian marriage is a very valid and relevant one. You, who want people to stretch their theology to include plural marriage, cannot seem to give me the space to discuss what I consider to be important biblical truths concerning God's heart towards those who are led to marry through Love at first sight. I find this odd to say the least.

Someone read through my site, which is extensive, until they found something they did not agree with and took that discussion here. All very well and good. However, if they want to discuss these things in this venue then allow me to do so. If you are up for that then I will do so.

Andrew, I am not "Poor JM" and what I say is not "Horse hocky" which is the polite way of saying something much more vulgar. Furthermore, Andrew, I have only suggested that people carry on this type of discussion on my site rather on this site because of the vitriol that some seem to have against what I say. I have been censored on this site for posting things that are consider contentious and so I am simply trying to avoid that situation again. Therefore, you assertion that I am trying to do what Steve said is false. I will not sit by and allow you or others to cast what I did and what I say in defamatory ways.

I do not have a "chip on my shoulder" and I do not have "Hurt feelings." Neither do I "whine." I am merely lucid about what is taking place here. I do not mind discussing what I write anywhere so your characterization of me is inaccurate in the regards too. What I do mind is the escalation of this discussion into something that brings disruption to this site. As I have said, I would rather avoid that. My avoidance of that does not mean I don't want to discuss things but just that I would prefer to do so in a civil manor so that I am not censored. If people want to rip and shred what I present I can rejoin them just as stridently...but I would prefer not to do it here.

From who you have just written, I find it hard to believe that you have no personal beef with me. Your words and characterizations seem very personal. However, on the off chance that this is just an intellectual discussion for you I would say this. Saying to a brother in Christ that he "pouts" is very disrespectful and characterizes him as someone who is immature. To further assert that my response to people in this group is a "whole 'nother level of dysfunction" cast me as as dysfunctional. You are parsing my motives for being here now and making judgements about my character. Is this really the venue to do such things and do you truly believe this is a Christ like attitude to take towards me?

I have not intimated that this group is beneath me in any way or that those who post here do not have wisdom. Therefore, I will not allow you to assign these type of attitudes to me either. If I challenge some doctrinal views of others (like they challenge the majorities views of monogamy) then let us all have a reasonable and civil discussion. I am all for that.

In conclusion, I cannot and will not allow others to assign motives to me that I do not have. If you want to bring what I write into this site and disagree with me then fine and well...I will defend my beliefs in a reasonable manner as I am allowed because I think they are scriptural and profitable doctrine. However, if I do so then don't suggest that I leave because I do not agree with you.

Blessings,

Justin

 

[andrew]

I thought you were a little more spiritually open minded.

Et tu, Curtis?.... Now I'm spiritually closed minded? That's really the problem here?...

What I see here is the same as....

No, not really. What you see here is more in the nature of a media disclaimer that "the opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the management". Samuel has a legitimate role in pointing out which posts are reflective of the overall belief system of this group and which are simply the private opinion of the poster.

Let's rein in the personal attacks (and defense, and counter-attacks, etc.). Do you have an opinion on the actual question presented? JM invited us to his site, ylop questioned him about something he wrote, and JM tried to defend his position with more scripture, which is being agreed with by no one. The correct move here, if no one has anything else to say about the actual topic, is simply to move on.

If you remember, Tom and I recently went on for pages of posts and hammered each other pretty hard without either one of us moving our position an inch. And as far as I can tell, we're still friends, and it will be a privilege to finally meet him in the flesh at the retreat. Apparently JM is not interested in that kind of debate, and this whole thread has gone off the rails because of it.

Curtis, straight up, do you believe that a man who falls in love with a woman other than his wife should use that soul connection, or whatever you want to call it, as grounds to question whether he married his existing wife outside of God's will? It is that assertion that is getting all the pushback, and that assertion alone. The rest of it is only as personal as you want to make it.

 

[andrew]

I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

I believe we are. I like to remind myself from time to time that it takes two eyeballs spaced a little bit apart to have depth perception. The distance between your pov and mine is not a problem, it's an advantage.

Curtis, straight up, do you believe that a man who falls in love with a woman other than his wife should use that soul connection, or whatever you want to call it, as grounds to question whether he married his existing wife outside of God's will? It is that assertion that is getting all the pushback, and that assertion alone. The rest of it is only as personal as you want to make it.

The answer is no, I do not agree with that question. However, I will say that I believe the question you asked is (in my opinion) out of context with the thought process brought forth in the idea of love at first sight. At least the way I understood it.

The we are completely on the same page as far as the underlying point that was originally being kicked around goes. Where we appear to diverge is on the way we read JM's original writing, as quoted by ylop. And I guess based on how you read the first quote, then that affects how you interpret JM's later response (Ezra, etc.).

JM, you can get back in the pool if you want; the water's fine! All of the consternation here is over your juxtaposition of a discussion of love at first sight with a discussion of grounds for divorce in a way that is apparently causing some confusion. If you're seriously contending that having a sudden affection and emotional/spiritual connection with a woman other than your wife can be used as grounds to rethink your relationship with your existing wife, in the face of Jesus's teaching in Mt 19:9, then just own it and be done with it (and be prepared for Samuel or someone to post something in closing that says that's your opinion and not that of the management...). On the other hand, if all these readers are making a connection that isn't there, or that you didn't intend, then please clarify your intention in going into the part about God honoring commitments made outside his will in the context of a piece on love at first sight.

 

[Anonymous]

Dear Andrew,

Ok, back in the pool.

What I am saying is that what the world terms "love at first sight" can sometimes be God leading people to marry. I am describing a real phenomenon and saying that in certain Spirit led situations that powerful attraction is God playing match maker. This happens to single people mostly but sometimes also to married people.

What I am not saying, is that people should mistake strong attraction as a license to leave their present spouse. God hates divorce. God would prefer that we all lay down our own needs and our own pride and simply obey His will as expressed through scripture and through His Holy Spirit.

Sometimes, though, we have entered into relationships, married or not, that are not His will. These unwise choices are damaging us and also prevent our Father from accomplishing His will through us. In such cases God sometimes divinely joins people together in what the world might term as "love at first sight" in order to break apart that which is not of Him and put them together with a mate of His choosing.

This is not a matter of self determination or infatuation but of submitting to the will of God even though it might be difficult. This presupposes being Spirit led. I think where the confusion is coming from in this discussion is that people assume that I am telling people just to divorce because they feel an attraction to someone else. I am not saying that at all.

A great many Christian marriages end in divorce no matter what they believe the scriptures say. I postulate that one of the major causes of this sad state of affairs is that people do not seek and receive permission from God to marry in the first place. God does not necessarily bless what He does not author; particularly when it prevents Him from accomplishing His will.

For those who have good marriages these precepts seem irrelevant. However, for those who struggle in very difficult situations these truths can give hope and comfort. People who have a loving spouse can easily say, "That is what the word says so just tough it out." They have theirs, their opinions on scripture doe not affect them. so they pay no prince for what they believe. However, those who are unequally yoke (for whatever reason) and who have struggled to live in Christ while the other half of their marriage cares little or nothing for God suffer daily. I define legalism as law without compassion.

Some have made the "marriage covenant" a small god that supersedes even the will of of the Almighty. Here is a truth:

"Man was not made for marriage but marriage we made for man"

If that which was intended to be a blessing has been made into a cursing is that truly fulfilling the intent of our Father? The reason that David was right to eat of the shew bread is because it symbolized life. Making his men perish for hunger was opposite of what God intended the shew bread to portray. Therefore, what was improper to do most of the time, in that circumstance, became proper to do that time. Likewise, while it is improper to divorce most of the time, in certain circumstances, is proper to do some of the time. It is in those situation that God can and sometimes does intervene through "love at first sight."

Lastly, the reason that this understanding is important is that we are entering into a time and season where everything which is not of the Spirit must go. We are bought with a price and we are not our own. Therefore, we must admit that God is free to do anything with us that He chooses. I you have married unwisely and that marriage is preventing you from being of service to God because your life is constant anarchy then, unless both of you decide to submit to our Father, the Holy Spirit may decide to join you together with another through "Love at first sight."

I hope this clarifies my position.

Sincerely,

Justin

 

[FollowingHim]

Thankyou Justin for finally getting back to addressing the topic. Let's now leave all personal accusations, questions on moderation, that sort of thing, and just address the topic at hand. Curtis, if you've still got any concerns let's discuss them offline so this thread can stay on track.

What I am not saying, is that people should mistake strong attraction as a license to leave their present spouse. God hates divorce. God would prefer that we all lay down our own needs and our own pride and simply obey His will as expressed through scripture and through His Holy Spirit.

Sometimes, though, we have entered into relationships, married or not, that are not His will. These unwise choices are damaging us and also prevent our Father from accomplishing His will through us. In such cases God sometimes divinely joins people together in what the world might term as "love at first sight" in order to break apart that which is not of Him and put them together with a mate of His choosing.

So what you are saying is that strong attraction is not a licence to leave your present spouse, unless you think it indicates you made the wrong choice when you married the first, in which case it is a licence to leave your present spouse? This is what I mean by this being potentially an excuse for anything.

This is not a matter of self determination or infatuation but of submitting to the will of God even though it might be difficult. This presupposes being Spirit led. I think where the confusion is coming from in this discussion is that people assume that I am telling people just to divorce because they feel an attraction to someone else. I am not saying that at all.

How would you determine whether the attraction indicates that God's will is for you to leave your present spouse, or is just an attraction?

A great many Christian marriages end in divorce no matter what they believe the scriptures say. I postulate that one of the major causes of this sad state of affairs is that people do not seek and receive permission from God to marry in the first place. God does not necessarily bless what He does not author; particularly when it prevents Him from accomplishing His will.

Where in scripture are we commanded to seek God's "permission" to marry? Sounds a nice idea, but you'll have to back it with scripture if you think not doing this is a major problem.

However, those who are unequally yoke (for whatever reason) and who have struggled to live in Christ while the other half of their marriage cares little or nothing for God suffer daily. I define legalism as law without compassion.

We shouldn't become unequally yoked. But if we have, the Bible is very clear what we should do about it, in 1 Corinthians 7:12-15. We are to STAY MARRIED, unless our spouse chooses to leave. The bible is very clear that being unequally yoked is NOT a reason for divorce.

I hope this clarifies my position.

It clarifies that you do believe what we thought you did, thankyou, but does not address the objections to it. As has already been stated several times, with references, your reasoning is contradicted very clearly by both Jesus and Paul's teaching on marriage in the scripture. You do need to address those passages.

 

[andrew]

Hey, JM. Nice to have you back!

I'm going to respond to the most recent post from you and mostly ignore the one above it. I say "mostly" because I will make the following observation and then walk away: I am not judging you personally or your character; my concern is with your words as published on this site. To deal with your next-to-last post above would be tedious for both of us, because I'd have to go back through your posts and quote the parts on which I based my comments and explain my reasoning, and then you'd respond to that, etc., etc. I think enough has been said here for anyone following the discussion or coming along after to draw their own conclusions about how well-grounded everyone's opinions and observations are or are not, and I'm cool with the record the way it stands. I'm willing to drop it if you are.

The record should also reflect that there's a bit of confusion about the order in which posts are hitting, but I'm not sure it makes any big ultimate difference in the final analysis.

On a happier note, let's talk about the topic at hand for a bit!

First, I have no problem with the idea of LAFS. If I have any problem, it has to do with the potential misuse or abuse of the idea, but that could be said about almost anything. Your assertion, though, that God sometimes brings people into a fairly immediate and surprisingly deep connection sits well with me.

I do have a bit of a problem with your take on divorce and the issue of vows generally. My understanding of Jesus's teaching is that he insists that we honor our word (yes, yes; no, no) and stay married to our wives unless they cheat on us (Mt 19:9). (Not that we have to divorce them if they cheat, but it becomes an option.) It may or may not have been God's prescriptive will for me to marry that woman, but if I did it anyway, then it becomes God's descriptive will that I stay married, and whatever that means for me at that point becomes a consequence I have to live with.

That's a small thing, though, that you and I could kick some ideas around over a beer and not necessarily have to agree on. Where it gets significantly murkier is when you connect the two, as follows:

God sometimes divinely joins people together in what the world might term as "love at first sight" in order to break apart that which is not of Him....

Sorry, friend, but that not only is utterly foreign to my practical experience with the work of the Holy Spirit and my understanding of the teachings of Jesus, I would consider it a fairly dangerous idea in this culture that rejects polygamy and embraces and encourages (directly or deceitfully) serial monogamy. As we say in Texas, "that dog won't hunt".

I'm not really interested in a big argument about it, and I don't think you are either. I'm content to leave this at "you've clarified your position and I've clarified mine". I think all the adults here can figure out what they think about this and why, and I don't know that there needs to be a debate contest with a winner and a loser. However, if you've got anything else you want to hear from me about this in the nature of a clarification or ramification that needs to be discussed, hit me back.

 

[Anonymous]

Dear FollowingHIm,

Yes, I am glad to be back on track too.

You wrote,

"So what you are saying is that strong attraction is not a licence to leave your present spouse, unless you think it indicates you made the wrong choice when you married the first, in which case it is a licence to leave your present spouse? This is what I mean by this being potentially an excuse for anything."

A gun can potentially kill anyone. Truth can potentially be misused by anyone too. My concept of being Spirit led is not that same as natural minded thinking. I believe people can learn to hear what God is saying by His Holy Spirit to them directly. This is not about "you" thinking but rather about "God" leading. Yes, you are certainly right that if you apply this concept without including God then you can really mess up. I call this the "argument from fear" fallacy. It can, as you say, become an excuse for anything. However, just because something is dangerous if handled incorrectly does not make it not of God.

Right now we are used to going by what we believe. To greater or lessor extents what we believe is based upon our understanding of the scriptures. The majority of the Christian church disagrees with plural marriage because they think it is sin. We, through the grace of God, are more enlightened, and understand the truth. Someday God's people are destined to mature into the fulness and stature of Jesus Christ. Spirit led liberty presupposes submission to the Spirit of God. What I say presupposes submission to God and a certain level of maturity too. Would I include this in my lessons about tithing to a new convert? No, certainly not. However, I would say this to someone who is in a terrible marriage and is feeling like God has provided an alternate spouse.

You also said,

"How would you determine whether the attraction indicates that God's will is for you to leave your present spouse, or is just an attraction?"

This type of spiritual union fueled by Gods love is so powerful it is beyond anything in this world. It is like finding a fully polished 100 caret diamond on the road and wondering if it was just a rock...there is simply no mistaking it. Knowing the voice of our Father is something that all His sheep need to practice. So the short answer is that those who are led of the Spirit will know the voice of their shepherd. It is an individual experience.

I think the problem, in some peoples minds, is; what do you do with someone who is saying I am being led to divorce my mate if we I not agree? How will I control them? If their obedience is no longer tied to the way what we believe scripture mandates how will we judge what they are doing as right or wrong? How will we stop them if they believe they are listening to God? The truth is, that while it is good to lead and guide babes in Christ at some point you have to allow your children to grow up and make their own way and their own mistakes. If they use the liberty of the Spirit as an occasion for the flesh they must bear the consequences of their error. You can counsel them to take things very slowly and really make sure they are hearing the voice of God but in the end you must release them and allow God to lead them.

Lastly, you said,

"Where in scripture are we commanded to seek God's "permission" to marry? Sounds a nice idea, but you'll have to back it with scripture if you think not doing this is a major problem."

It is written,

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."

Rom 8:14

and,

"But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law."

Gal 5:18

The sons of God are led by God's Spirit not just in some things but in all things. Marriage, being a really big thing, should be led by His Spirit too. Are you truly advocating that we need not seek God's permission for whom we marry? Are you seriously saying that such a far reaching decision should be in our sole control? I think not.

Jesus said "go and sin no more" to a woman who was caught in the very act of adultery. The law is very clear on this point. Would you have casted the first stone? Scriptures demands it you know. Paul counseled that a person should stay with their mate hoping to win them to the lord and that is true. Do you actually think, though, that if the mate in question was married to an abusive husband that this scripture still applies? Exactly how many blows to the head should she take before you would feel comfortable allowing her to marry another? If she left her abusive husband would you demand that she remain single for righteousness sake while you slept with your wife each night? Legalistic interpretations of scripture, because they are so absurd, always break down when applied to extreme examples due to the fact they have no flexibility built into them. Legalism has no compassion for others. I spoke to you about the shew bread and that should be enough for you to realize what I am saying.

There is no specific scripture that says you should have more than wife either...anywhere. In fact, there are many scriptures that show being plurally married often times bring strife. Yet, you have researched it and found that there are instances where it is good and honorable. Why do you and otherd have so much understanding of something so against the normative church and you cannot see what I say? Your scriptural references for polygamy are not that strong...I know...I have studied most all of them.

Many have read the manual to varying degrees but not all have actually experienced what it is talking about. Even the most strident "never divorce your mate" adherent will suddenly search the scriptures thoroughly when they find themselves personally in a untenable situation with a spouse.

Blessings,

Justin

 

[Anonymous]

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for the De-escalation. I welcome it. I think I am fine leaving things there too. I do agree with your point that such precepts may be misused and that is a reasonable concern.

In the end, cooler heads have prevailed.

Blessings,

Justin

 

[andrew]

Re FollowingHim's post above:

I think we have a choice to make here, and while I generally disagree with JM's contention that any comments on his writing should have been posted over at his site, I do have one point of agreement with him. JM has his own website and his own message, his own ministry and his own priorities. He let us know that he had made some site revisions and was planning a trip that some of us might be interested in, and ylop went over to the site to check it out. So far, so good. Then a particular passage on divorce fell under scrutiny, not because JM brought it here looking for a debate, but because ylop had a question about it (not faulting you, ylop - more on that later).

I think (just me thinking out loud here) that the statement "you do need to address those passages" needs to be qualified a bit, because maybe he doesn't need to address them at all. I think it's readily apparent to anyone reading this topic (5th page now...) that the views of thefinalfeast.com do not necessarily reflect those of biblicalfamilies.org, and vice versa, and imo that's an okay place to leave this. The only reason those passages would "need" to be addressed would be if JM were trying to convince people here to change their minds, or if we're conducting some kind of trial to decide whether he's a heretic. Neither of those alternatives appeals to me personally (can't speak for anyone else), and I don't think we need to go further at this point than "agree to disagree".

I have no problem with ylop's raising the question in this forum; I think that was fair given that JM was promoting his site in this forum. I have no problem with anyone's challenging JM's pov here in strong terms, particularly while there is some confusion re what exactly he was connecting to what; I think that was fair enough, also, given the nature of the topic. But I think he's made it pretty clear at this point what he believes, and I don't see much profit in pursuing further debate. (Note: I'm saying "I" this and that not because it's up to me but because I can only speak for myself. My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the management!)

All of that is really up to JM, though. If he's up for it, then game on! To the extent that he's being forced to defend his views (beyond basic clarification) in a debate he didn't really ask for, though, I would have some sympathy for his for his original assertion that maybe this whole conversation should be happening over at his site if at all.

 

[andrew]

I had an afterthought I'd like to share.

Here's where the rubber meets the road for me: in the nitty-gritty of applied theology. Abstractions are pretty things, and sometimes we get distracted by them, but they are just abstractions, even if they're theological abstractions. Everything has to answer to the $64 question: So What?

If I were to have the experience of LAFS tomorrow, the only question on the table would be whether to add her to the family. And I'll put my cards on the table right here: I would not consider LAFS to be an automatic call to marriage. I don't know what JM means by "love" in that context (whole 'nother thread), but I love lots of people I don't intend to share the rest of my life with, and realizing I have a deep and lasting connection with someone is not the only thing that would get taken into account in the decision to get married. So that makes three things that in my economy are all separate categories of relationship change that are completely independent of each other. "Falling in love" doesn't necessarily lead to "getting married" which I can't imagine leading to "divorcing the person you're already with".

And if one of my kids or friends or anyone else that I care about that respects me enough to let me into their life and cares what I think about their relationships ever tells me that he's divorcing his wife because he has now realized that he married out of God's will, and the way he came to that realization is that he just met the woman that he now realizes he was meant for, I will tell him that his infatuation has thrown him off balance and direct him to Mt 19:9.

And if it's not someone that is asking me for advice, it's not my problem. Anybody outside my sphere of influence is not my concern.

Whether God ever could under any circumstances direct someone to divorce his wife at the same time as and through the agency of that person's falling in love with another woman is covered by "God can do anything he wants". If he can tell Abraham to murder Isaac, he can do whatever, even if it is a little outside the box to say the least.

Nobody is going to get away with that on my watch, though, without some serious corroborating prophetic intel and other factors that support and validate that conclusion, to the point where I do not expect that to happen to anyone I know in my lifetime.

 

[FollowingHim]

This type of spiritual union fueled by Gods love is so powerful it is beyond anything in this world. It is like finding a fully polished 100 caret diamond on the road and wondering if it was just a rock...there is simply no mistaking it. Knowing the voice of our Father is something that all His sheep need to practice. So the short answer is that those who are led of the Spirit will know the voice of their shepherd. It is an individual experience.

Fully agree that God can cause an attraction to a woman that is this powerful and wonderful. What I disagree with is that that would ever be reason to divorce. You have yet to provide any scripture that supports that claim, just your own reasoning.

Many have read the manual to varying degrees but not all have actually experienced what it is talking about. Even the most strident "never divorce your mate" adherent will suddenly search the scriptures thoroughly when they find themselves personally in a untenable situation with a spouse.

I am not saying never divorce. The Bible outlines when divorce is allowable, and it most certainly is in some circumstances. Furthermore if an abused slave was allowed to flee their master and be free under the OT law, we cannot argue that an abused wife is bound to stay with her husband and thus has less rights than a slave. We serve a merciful God.

Basically as I look at the scriptures my summation of the matter is "Don't break your marriage by divorcing your spouse. But if your spouse breaks the marriage themselves (e.g. adultery, a non-believer choosing to leave), you're free to divorce them in return". This general way of looking at it seems to align with every example of divorce I've seen. I'd then say that an abusive husband (for instance) has already broken the marriage themselves, the wife who is forced to flee can do so guiltless knowing that it is her husband who is to blame for the breakup - just as an abused slave was also allowed to flee.

But here you aren't arguing that divorce is allowable just in the case of severe abuse. Rather you're arguing that divorce is allowable in the case of a new "spiritual connection" to another person. That's a completely different kettle of fish. Nowhere are we EVER told that a new strong relationship with someone else is justification for divorce. In fact we are told the opposite, that leaving one woman for another is ADULTERY, and that's how Christ Himself described it. What you are doing here, in my view, is attempting to justify something that Christ called adultery, in four separate places in the Gospels so this is something God intended to make very clear.

 

[FollowingHim]

Well described Curtis. In my view scenario 1 is acceptable and 2 is not. It is my understanding that Justin is arguing that 2 is also acceptable, a position that I believe is completely contrary to scripture. Scripture would instead indicate that a man faced with 2 should instead avoid sin by following options 3 (ignore the new girl and focus on his wife) or 4 (keep his wife and marry the new girl too).

 

[andrew]

Which one of these hypothetical situations best describes the idea being presented here, or at least understood to be being presented here?

Let's hear directly from JM:

God sometimes divinely joins people together in what the world might term as "love at first sight" in order to break apart that which is not of Him....

The sequence is:

(a) married the "wrong" person,
(b) minding your own business,
(c) LAFS,
(d) God has your attention now, and now you realize the error of your ways,
(e) nothing for it but to divorce wife #1 (seen here basically as an act of repentance) and marry #2.

JM's description doesn't leave much room for your first scenario. It is the second that is a better fact situation to illustrate the proposition under review. JM has made it clear in the passage I quoted and a couple of other places that the LAFS is the wake up call that shakes you out of your presumed disobedience.

I have never seen God willfully break up a marriage; I see or hear of humans failing to honor their vows almost every day. I do not think the consequence of a hasty, ill-advised vow would be to be shown the love of your life and told to kick your wife to the curb. I do think the consequence of a hasty, ill-advised vow would be to spend the rest of your life married to the 'wrong' woman and figuring out how to make it work best you can.

I think the old saying is "marry in haste, repent at leisure"....

 

[ylop]

ylop just popping my head back in here for a little while.

Justin/Michael - thank you for clarifying your position, which seems to be in line with what I originally thought when I read your website.

For everyone, my impression is that J/M's posts are fishing expeditions for his own site. Upon reading his site, it leaves me feeling unsettled. The Love at First Sight article in particular. It sets off my radar alert.

In life there are many people who wander around looking for direction.

And there are some people happy to provide that direction. And oversight. And answers. And a plan for their life.

In particular for females that are looking...

ylop

 

[steve]

Michael,
One thing just confuses the living snot out of me. Why even make divorce a part of the picture?

Oh poo, I literally, while typing the question, answered it.

I was going to make the case that since you believe in plural marriage, you would never have to divorce any wives as YHWH trots out the latest, most perfect, soulmate.

But then I realized, that wouldn't leave any room for the already-married women to come to their senses in your presence and realize that they were being called to the greater good and needed to leave behind that not-made-in-heaven relationship that they thought that they had been blessed with.

no longer confused.