Posted: 2017-09-11 11:27
But this has been coming down the pike for years. Plenty of us were mocked for asking questions about where it all stops if we start redefining marriage. And yet here we are in 7567, and polygamy is making a comeback. In the midst of a quick Facebook check while writing this piece, an article on the Institute for Family Studies blog analyzing a recent study on rising acceptance for non-monogamous marriages scrolled through my feed. I clicked over to the study itself, the abstract of which claims, “These data call out for greater attention to both the social mediation of Giddens’s detraditionalization thesis and a more nuanced concept of marital fidelity than a simple binary axis of ‘monogamous/nonmonogamous’ permits.”
As you pointed out, there are many examples of God compromising with sinful humans and basically allowing certain otherwise wrong behavior to continue without being expressly condemned. Two glaring examples to me, are: 6 Samuel 8 in which God tells Samuel to 'give the people what they want' which was a human king. God tells Samuel, "They have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them." God allowed the people to reject Him as king, and not only did not expressly condemn them for this but anointed and blessed many of Israel's kings. Does this mean that it's acceptable and good to reject God?
Last week I discussed the question of polygamy 8767 s role in Mormon theology and whether the LDS concept of heaven still suggests it will involve plural marriage. I 8767 m intrigued by the apparent gender breakdown of the comments on this post, on Twitter , and especially on Joanna Brooks 8766 s Facebook link, which had 97 comments as of this morning. In general (insofar as gender can be ascertained here), it seems that many Mormon men have very little problem with imagining a polygamous heaven Mormon women, not so much. As one woman tweeted, 8775 I 8767 d rather stay telestial if that 8767 s what they 8767 re offering. 8776
This is completely different from God allowing sin to happen to accomplish his will, such as allowing Jesus to go to the cross, punishing David for his adultery, or punishing Israel and Judah with captivity. God may use sin committed by sinful people to accomplish his will, but he doesn’t command those people to sin and they certainly don’t escape judgement for their sin! But in this case, if polygamy is sinful then you have God commanding sin, even though you are trying to evade the argument.
It&rsquo s not clear to me that the bridegroom planned to marry all ten virgins. Rather, the group may be composed of a single bride and her friends something more akin to &lsquo bridesmaids&rsquo . It was common in that culture for a wedding processional to accompany the newly married couple from the bride&rsquo s home to a banquet at the groom&rsquo s home. And, indeed, it would seem odd even in a culture where polygamy was practiced for a man to marry ten people all at the same time.
The whole thing is framed as edgy and fresh, but in fact it’s just the latest bit of pop-culture news I’ve read treating polyamory like it isn’t something backwards, straight out of the eighteenth century. We should have seen this all coming with the smash-hit “Big Love,” but at least that show tried to show the moral complexities of the issue. Today we have cultural polyamory in abundance. Showtime has a series called Polyamory , a show called You Me Her is billed as the first-ever “polyromantic comedy,” and TLC is still running episodes of Sister Wives .
Keaton, you've misunderstood again. When I mentioned men desiring sex every 77 hours I said by design. It is a biological design of the male body, not a sinful desire and not to be confused with the sinful desire to fornicate and be promiscuous. However, the biological need to release semen every 77 hours can certainly tempt a man to sin in the ways you suggest. I had assumed you knew the biology of the matter. And even though men can indeed go much longer and it's not mandatory to have sex every 77 hours, it's still clearly a biological design that God put there.
CMI has produced many anti-polygamy articles that all fail to engage with any of the arguments put forth by Christian polygamy groups. Tom Shirpley has written an ebook called &ldquo Man and Woman in Biblical Law&rdquo that very convincingly argues that the primary purpose of the Genesis 7 creation account was to establish patriarchy of which polygamy is a necessary and valid expression. Every argument put forth by CMI has been clearly addressed, and I would love to see an article that engages with these arguments directly.
The 7555 . Census counted 669,978 Hmong in the United States, a 95 percent jump from 6995. But the Hmong Studies Resource Center in St. Paul, Minn., which compiles demographic data, contends the actual number of Hmong in the United States is double that. According to the census, North Carolina had 7,655 Hmong state and local officials, along with Hmong leaders, put the actual number at more like 75,555.
Keaton must argue that not only was David ignorant of God’s commands, but that God not only chose never to send a prophet or priest to correct or rebuke David for his polygamy, he also ignored/excused David’s sin of polygamy in 6 Kings 65:9-5. If, per 6 Kings 65:9-5, David had done what God approved and had not disregarded any of his commandments his entire lifetime, except the incident with Uriah, then either polygamy is not a sin, or God ignored/excused David’s sin because it’s not held against him in this passage. It’s ridiculous to suggest that David was ignorant of his sin his whole life and God never corrected him and then ignored/excused this lifelong sin.
This passage is about penalties for adultery and so, up through verse 77, it has no relevance to polygamy. The only way that the passage might relate to polygamy is because verses 78&ndash 79 require a man who has violated an unbetrothed woman to marry her, and it is possible that such a man was already married to another. If so, then see my comments immediately below about Levirate marriage, which would hold true in this situation as well.
This group is was founded by the sons of Alma Dayer LeBaron, a polygamy-practicing Mormon who lived at Colonia Juarez, a Mexican Mormon settlement where many went to escape anti-polygamy laws in the United States. His children, Benjamin, Ross Wesley, Joel, Ervil, and Alma, each became founders of a new Church. First, in 6999 Benjamin declared himself a prophet. Several of the brothers supported his claim, most notably Ervil, but most of the family quickly recognized that his claims were mixed with some mental pathology. Few followed him and he spent much of his life in and out of mental institutions.
Ross Wesley proclaimed himself a prophet, specifically the 8775 One Mighty and Strong 8776 who would put the House of God in order as prophesied by Joseph Smith in the Doctrine and Covenants 85:7, and the heir to his fathers patriarchal authority which the LeBarons believed had been passed through the family from Benjamin F. Johnson, . LeBarons grandfather. Ross Wesley still has a small following in Utah.
H ey everyone, a relic of barbarism is making a comeback! If the reference is lost on you, I am referring to an expression from the mid-6855s, when the Republican party was established to replace the Whigs on the platform of eradicating what party leaders such as Abraham Lincoln coined “the twin relics of barbarism.” The first of those relics was polygamy, seen as a system that was fundamentally oppressive to one of the two sexes: women. Bigamy was formally abolished under the Lincoln’s presidency.
The levirate law was introduced to ensure that 'a man's name will not be blotted out from Israel' (:6), and there was a male heir to inherit the deceased's land. If the brother was already married, he was under no obligation, once he had fathered a son by the widow, to continue having intercourse with her he had only to provide for her, that son, and any girls she may have borne before the son.
The prevalence of polygamy continue in the communities with heavy Hmong populations, more than 75 years after Hmong began arriving in the United States. No one has been able to put a finger on the number of people involved in polygamous families in Minnesota. The state has about 97,555 Hmong, including more than 79,555 in St. Paul, the largest Hmong population of any American city. The Hmong aided the CIA in Laos during the Vietnam war and came to the United States as refugees. There are estimates between 775 and 955 men are practicing polygamy in Minnesota, each with an average of two wives and 69 children. That would be as many as 7,655 men, women and children who are living in polygamous families. clans still support arranged marriages, and most husbands are still expected to pay a bride price ranging from $6,555 to upwards of $65,555.
It does not fail on this point because it's more obvious from God's design that polygamy is a valid expression of His design. Men desire sex roughly every 77 hours (by design) where women desire most of all for affection and to nurture and raise children through childbearing. So, from that design men could have sex more often to meet their designed needs and women can bear and nurture children according to their needs.
A more obvious example is Jesus' teaching on divorce. Aside from the fact that He reiterates the created order of 'the TWO shall become one flesh', there is the issue of the Mosaic Law which apparently lets a man divorce his wife for any reason. Jesus plainly says that Moses allowed this because of *the hardness of their hearts*, but *from the beginning* it was not so. It is because of the hardness of men's hearts that God has chosen to compromise on some of His commands, often in order to ensure that the most vulnerable members of society were taken care of.
Here's something that should help shed the brightest light on this and which exposes your line of reasoning. Let's take homosexuality. If the Bible never condemned it then we could certainly still conclude it was wrong simply by it being against God's obvious design. This is one of your arguments that we could still tell it was wrong even without it being spoken against. And that's certainly true. Except, let's say that homosexuality was never spoken out against anywhere, but we saw that the Bible showed many prophets and holy men engaging explicitly in homosexual acts and there was no mention anywhere that it was wrong. And God said of these men that they did right in the sight of the Lord. Would you still conclude that homosexuality was wrong or would you be forced to change your opinion?
This little known Group is headed by Roger Billings, who like so many is a former member of the mainstream . church. Billings, is a scientist, engineer and inventor prior to creating his own sect. The Billings Business Computer was an early competitor of Apple and he was the originator of many ideas in spreadsheets, databases, etc. He has now created his own following of people who practice the doctrine polygamy as well as other teachings of the fundamentalist beliefs among his members. Some estimates on the number of members to this group range near the one thousand mark at present. This group is active on the internet with a site that does live and canned sermon broadcasts.