Christian Polygamy? - Page 5

Hezzer · 04-22-2008, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PollySis

Literally in the same breath you say all sins are equal and then go on to say blasphemy is the 'worst'... Eh????

What she said was "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit," which is in essence denying God.

In my faith, we refer to it as grieving or sinning against God's Holy Spirit. The sin itself isn't so much the issue as is the willful, intentional, deliberate nature behind it, despite knowing the conduct and standards by which we are required to abide.

sarahgmac · 04-22-2008, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PollySis

So to paraphrase George Orwell, *All sins are equal but some more equal than others*??? Literally in the same breath you say all sins are equal and then go on to say blasphemy is the 'worst'... Eh???? Can't for the life of me see how gossip is equal (or is it equal but less equal?) to murder!

This is why, to me, it is a historical thing rather than a workable thing in the modern world. How can you live by a book full of contradictions - don't you end up being contradictory yourself? (Hmmm think I just seen the evidence of that!) And is it 'sin' if it's done by someone because they're mentally ill, which was my example above? Would a woman murdering her husband who'd systematically abused her for years, be a sinner? And would she be more of a sinner than the man? And how can you equate murder to polygamy? Is that sane?

For me as a pagan, I haven't really got that concept of gods who hate people or decide certain actions are 'sin'. It's a human concept - not a god's. Why would an all powerful being care who you slept with, what you wore, or anything about you or your actions? Seems so alien to me but then all these rather draconian concepts come from the Middle East - and I don't. Got no problem with polygamy - so long as it's not used to abuse and oppress women.

You are not going to understand because you do not believe the same things as a Christian will. To God a sin is a sin. Murder equal to a lie. The biggest sin is denying God. Where do I get this? The Bible. And if you don't believe it, that is your prerogative. Just because you don't believe the same thing, does not make us less sane than you.

I am not going to call paganism not sane, so I would appreciate you comments not being condescending to the Christians here on this site.

DiamondInTheRough · 04-22-2008, 11:22 PM

Polly, what I don't understand is why you bother entering any of these threads. You never seem to get anywhere near understanding or accepting a response/explanation from anyone. It honestly seems like you get into these threads for one reason, and one alone - to ultimately tell us all how crazy and stone-age we are for believing in the 'middle-eastern' religions (or maybe it's anything non-pagan).

I can understand some things are harder to wrap your mind around then others - we all face that when learning about others. But a person should be able to believe in something else yet engage in meaningful discussion with other people and remain mature and respectful about it.

I get the impression that for as much belief/faith you may have in Paganism, you have as much hate for all other ways of life. That's very sad. Your way of life should be enough for you, without the constant need to knock down other people who are different then you.

PollySis · 04-23-2008, 07:36 AM

Read back my responses and you'll see I'm engaging with the debate - I suspect you simply don't like my views. I got a lot of time for people of all faiths and find these questions fascinating.

Life's too short to have no intellectual curiosity because if you have an original opinion, someone threatens to shut you up.

Thanks for the tolerance of the xian cysters here who don;t seem to mind this particular little demon joining in the discussion. Cheers!

Back to the thread.

And this thread is interesting - seems someone hijacks it into personal abuse and I think the rest of us shouldn't be deflected. Engaging in what we're talking about here - polygamy.

Has anyone read Roseanne Barr's autobigraphy? OP, I think that would give you one perspective. I'm pretty sure she was brought up in Salt Lake City not as a mormon but in that community, and went to a Mormon college and didn't she say that she believed growing up that the mormons had to repudiate polygamy, in order to be accepted in the modern world - but that it was still a core belief *behind closed doors*? I'm sure she said something along those lines and as someone who grew up and went to college there, she'd be likely to know?

And if you read back to my older posts, you'll see I was engaging with the idea that polygamy is equal to murder and if I found the argument inconsistent, then my response reflected that. As you can see - pagans aren't out to make converts but we shouldn't be threatened or silenced in debate because you can't handle what we say (and thanks xian cysters here for not trying to intimidate me off the thread). Is polygamy equal to murder? Not for me, but yes for some xians by the look of it. And isn't that interesting. If we hadn't engaged in this thread here, we might never have found that out.

I'd also be interested to find out as from what I seen here I think a lot of different xian sects don't understand this either, but if we have any Mormons here or people who have Mormon friends... weren't there simply historical reasons why polygamy was practiced? Crossing the Rockies, more women than men probably, perilous jouney, having to found and establish a community the simple pressure of having to be enough of them to survive, etc etc. What I'm saying is - in terms of pioneers in the Mid West in the 19thC - there would be a certain amount of pragmatism involved in deciding that god sanctioned polygamy - in those circumstances, at that time and in that seemingly hostile environment, a benighted group of people... maybe polygamy simply made sense and ensured the community's survival? If we have an historians here maybe they would be able to tell us more?

DiamondInTheRough · 04-23-2008, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PollySis

Read back my responses and you'll see I'm engaging with the debate - I suspect you simply don't like my views. I got a lot of time for people of all faiths and find these questions fascinating.

Life's too short to have no intellectual curiosity because if you have an original opinion, someone threatens to shut you up.

Thanks for the tolerance of the xian cysters here who don;t seem to mind this particular little demon joining in the discussion. Cheers!

Ha! On the contrary cyster, on the contrary. It is clear as day to me that you are the one who becomes threatened and in turn you fall back to your usual disrespect of other belief systems. I mean, I have come to actually see the pattern and I wait for it, and it most certainly always arrives.

Quote:

And this thread is interesting - seems someone hijacks it into personal abuse and I think the rest of us shouldn't be deflected. Engaging in what we're talking about here - polygamy.

Aha, now there is some insight. That is, however, if you realize that "someone" is you. You may like to reread the thread yourself and realize you did offend at least one "xian" cyster.

Quote:

Back to the thread.

Now there's an idea.

Ajani · 04-23-2008, 02:31 PM

Agreed, back to the thread.

I think the general point has been made pretty well that identifying oneself as a Christian comes with the expectation that one will uphold the principals and truths of the bible and will follow the teachings therein. Polygamy does not line up with what followers of Christ believe.

And I think most of us can also agree that anyone can call themselves "Christian." But that's not what makes it so. It's a heart issue, not a lable. The heart that belongs to Jesus follows Him.

PBLayzod · 04-23-2008, 02:46 PM

I think it's an intersting idea that the root of this in the Mormon faith might have been the need due to their unique circumstances in history. I think a lot of the tradition in faiths seem to come from this same sort of thing. Look at the Catholic church. At some point they will likely be forced to change their policy on priests marrying. I'm sure some doctorinal explanation will be given, but really it wil come from necessity.

Hezzer · 04-23-2008, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBLayzod

Look at the Catholic church. At some point they will likely be forced to change their policy on priests marrying. I'm sure some doctorinal explanation will be given, but really it wil come from necessity.

This requirement on the part of the Catholic church has always puzzled me. Nowhere in the Bible can such a rule be justified. In fact, requirements for overseers in the Christian congregation were that, if married, they should only have one wife (1 Timothy 3:2).

In fact, that same scripture in the Catholic Revised Standard version says: “A bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife.” It never said he couldn't have a wife, just not more than one wife.

Celibacy for Christian ministers was never a requirement for the first Christian congregations, either. Such a belief came in much later. The New Encyclopedia Britannica says: "A belief that sexual intercourse was defiling and incompatible with holiness emerged as the dominant motivation for the practice of celibacy."

Yet such a belief is not God's. Just reading The Song of Solomon shows that love and intimacy between a man and woman is beautiful and acceptable in his eyes.

The Apostle Paul even warned of these doctrines that would sneak in at 1 Timothy 4:1-3: 1 However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, 2 by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; 3 forbidding to marry,

I know they say it allows the priest to give more attention to God and to concentrate on his work, but I think that rule was developed more to preserve the material patrimony of the church, preventing descendants from obtaining land and other possessions.

Honorable marriage is a blessing from God. Enforced celibacy has turned out to be spiritually damaging.

PBLayzod · 04-23-2008, 03:22 PM

I see the practical reason for requiring celibacy for priests. If they were married with a family it would interfere with their duties at the church. A single, celibate priest can devote himself fully to his congregation. I'm sure the Catholic church has something they base this requirement on. Again, we justify what we find necessary.

Hezzer · 04-23-2008, 03:27 PM

Funny . . . I was adding to my comment at the same time you were posting yours it happened to be right on with your comment.

PollySis · 04-23-2008, 04:09 PM

Re. history and its effect on the mores of various religious groups....

Friend of mine is a catholic and an historian and he tells me that his church's view of what 'celibacy' means, has changed over time. So there have been periods in history where the rules were interpreted more - or less - strictly - sometimes it may have meant simply 'not married' rather than total abstinance... Again, you could probably find scripture to back up any standpoint on many issues, so all are justifiable and all are, strictly speaking 'christian'.

Found this link, which looks interesting:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/polygamy.shtml

Looks like there's ongoing controversy even amongst LDS members about 19thC polygamy, and the extent of it in the 20thC too.

Just from having a browse online, I'm wondering if the LDS founder wasn't influenced by the various radical sects and sometimes social experiments that came out of England post 1640s, such as the radical Fifth Monarchists who believed after a period of 1000 years, god would literally rule on earth, after a 'rule of the saints'. Some of them fled to America when non conformists were clamped down on post our civil war and tried to set up utopian communities there.

http://www.aberconwy.conwy.sch.uk/cu.../fifthmons.htm

But also may have been another expression of that groundswell of ideas, such as those of people like the proto socialist, Robert Owen, who left England for America to set up an ideal community in the 19thC:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRowen.htm

Heading West was another expression of that?

That idea of 'the elect' is interesting, too - that god would choose a limited # of people who would then get into heaven, regardless of their 'sins' or behaviour - it was a very powerful idea in early 19thC over here.

Hezzer · 04-23-2008, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBLayzod

I see the practical reason for requiring celibacy for priests. If they were married with a family it would interfere with their duties at the church. A single, celibate priest can devote himself fully to his congregation. I'm sure the Catholic church has something they base this requirement on. Again, we justify what we find necessary.

The irony is, in my opinion, that it is impractical and has hurt more than helped their religion.

The overseers in our congregations are unpaid, work a secular job to care for their families, and still put their heart and soul into caring for the needs of the congregation. True, a balance is needed, and I have known some overseers to step down from certain responsibilities if they felt too much was being taken away from families. But what I've seen most often is the family pulling together and supporting the husband/father even more so that he can care for the congregation.

A religion can make any rule it wants and if its followers want to go along with those rules, then so be it. But what bothers me is when they make up doctrines and pawn them off as being Biblically based.

PBLayzod · 04-23-2008, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hezzer

A religion can make any rule it wants and if its followers want to go along with those rules, then so be it. But what bothers me is when they make up doctrines and pawn them off as being Biblically based.

I think most if not all x-ian sects do this. It just doesn't seem that way if it's your particular sect's doctrines. The NT alone is open to a lot of interpretation even if you are using identical Greek texts. What seems perfectly obvious to one believer may seem completely ridiculous to another.

As for the family and church thing. As the child of a minister and the friend of many other ministers' children, I can tell you that complete balance is absolutely impossible. Either the family or the congregation get the short end of the stick, and sometimes it's both. I'm not saying that it's anyones fault. It's like being a wife and mother, or wife and daughter, or mother and employee. There are always times when you have to neglect the needs of one to attend to the other. Even the best can't be all things 24/7.

Jashobeam · 04-23-2008, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ajani

Agreed, back to the thread.

I think the general point has been made pretty well that identifying oneself as a Christian comes with the expectation that one will uphold the principals and truths of the bible and will follow the teachings therein. Polygamy does not line up with what followers of Christ believe.

And I think most of us can also agree that anyone can call themselves "Christian." But that's not what makes it so. It's a heart issue, not a lable. The heart that belongs to Jesus follows Him.

Well said!

John 10:14
"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me"

John 10:27
"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me."

Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

John 3:7
You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'

John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

1 Peter 3:18
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,

Ephesians 2:8
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—

Romans 6
1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

John 10:28
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Hezzer · 04-24-2008, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBLayzod

Either the family or the congregation get the short end of the stick, and sometimes it's both. I'm not saying that it's anyones fault. It's like being a wife and mother, or wife and daughter, or mother and employee. There are always times when you have to neglect the needs of one to attend to the other. Even the best can't be all things 24/7.

Families of overseers do make sacrifices for the sake of the congregation. As I mentioned, if not for the support of his family, I doubt a minister could continue effectively.

My two best friends (a brother and sister) are the son of the presiding overseer of our congregation, a position he's cared for since they were born. It is one of great responsibility and whenever I was at their home, the phone seemed to ring off the hook from other ministers or members of the congregations. There was no doubt they gave up time with their father so that it could be spent on care of the congregation.

With them, and what I see in most cases of the families of the overseers is that they tend to be far more spiritual and zealous than your average family in the congregation and not just ours, but all the congregations round about in our circuit. Yes, there definitely are exceptions that spring to my mind, but overall that certainly tends to be the case.

In the case of my two friends, they kind of followed in dad's footsteps. He's a ministerial servant (assistant to the overseers) in our congregation who is working towards being and overseer and she married an overseer and they moved to a small Spanish congregation to help out where there was a need. (She speaks fluent spanish as it was part of her triple major in college and her husband retained much of what he had learned from taking it for five years in high school - though he had to do a lot of brushing up.)

They are both what we refer to as "pioneers" meaning they engage in their field ministry for 70 hours each month. This is in addition to her working as a history tutor (her triple major was in history, spanish, and education) and getting her master's degree in education and his orchestra performances (He has a master's in Jazz performance.) They both really have a spirit of self-sacrifice and I wonder if hers would be so strong if not for her father's example.