This is exactly why I will never have qnything to do with organized religion again. No man has authority over my relationship with YHVH.
-
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.
Making Progress on the church acceptance front
- Thread starter Daniel DeLuca
- Start date
It's a funny thing that the worship pastor would have me sit down face to face with him, to tell me that I have to renounce polygamy, in order to resume plauing in the church orchestra. He could have told me that over the phone or in an email, and avoided that whole discussion, but now he is without excuse. He has now heard the words of Scripture. He told me several times that I was trying to convince him to change his mind. Nothing could be further from the truth. Changing his mind wouldn't do any good, if the ultimate decision is based on what out pastor wants. He threw out all the accusations that many of you have already heard, saying that what I am doing, is harmful to my wife. I told him about BF and the people that I have met, and how we understand this FWS. He had never heard of Biblical Families. My response each time he said that I was trying to change his mind, was that he was the one trying to change my mind. I don't blame him for trying. If he would have actually used some valid Scripture, and could make some valid points using Scripture, I would ceratinly give that consideration, and I still will. I mean, I don't claim to have all knowledge, and even though I have read through the entire Bible several times and have memorized several books of the New Testament, there is always a possibility that I missed something.
He told me that he would like to have me back. His conditions, however, are unacceptable! He kept saying that "Truth is truth!" I told him that I agree with that statement, and then asked where we find truth. Of course he acknowlrdgrd that truth is found in Scripture, but then he pointed to himself and said something to the effect of how he feels about it, somehow also defines truth. I told him him he could get into a lot of trouble with that sort of extra biblical revelation, and mentioned Joseph Smith. He said that it was discernment, which is funny because his "discernment" runs completely opposite of what I have found in Scripture.
One of the things he demanded was an explanation for why I would want a second wife. In hindsight, the only explanation I should have given, is that God has given me the desire for a second wife. I told him that before, and he tried to claim that that desire cane from Satan, with no real explanation as to how he could possibly know that. Instead, I tried to explain to him how I see God using polygamy to restore marriages and keep marriages from falling apart in the first place. That didn't go over too well, and he clearly did not understand the point I was driving at. Je thought I was trying to throw other people under the bus, since I used them as examples, so I was never able to drive home that point. He was incredulous when I quoted the very words of Jesus, when He said that "whoever divorces his wife..., causes her to commit adultery." The worship pastor at my former church caused his own wife to commit adultery. He responded by saying that I was trying to say that she was responsible for the adultery. Nothing couyld be further from the truth! I told him several times that what Jesus was saying, was that that worship pastor is held responsible for the adultery that she committed. I repeated several times, that I was only quoting Jesus. In hindsight, I should have told him that his disagreement was not with me, but with Christ.
We had a cordial end of discussion, where he said that he likes me and that we can still be friends. I said that I like him too, and that I am happy we brought him to our church, and that I love the worship that he has brought, and we shook hands. I told him I am going to miss playing and that this will be the first year in a long time, that I will not be playing at Christmas time. I have much more to share about that discussion, but I will save it for a later post.
He told me that he would like to have me back. His conditions, however, are unacceptable! He kept saying that "Truth is truth!" I told him that I agree with that statement, and then asked where we find truth. Of course he acknowlrdgrd that truth is found in Scripture, but then he pointed to himself and said something to the effect of how he feels about it, somehow also defines truth. I told him him he could get into a lot of trouble with that sort of extra biblical revelation, and mentioned Joseph Smith. He said that it was discernment, which is funny because his "discernment" runs completely opposite of what I have found in Scripture.
One of the things he demanded was an explanation for why I would want a second wife. In hindsight, the only explanation I should have given, is that God has given me the desire for a second wife. I told him that before, and he tried to claim that that desire cane from Satan, with no real explanation as to how he could possibly know that. Instead, I tried to explain to him how I see God using polygamy to restore marriages and keep marriages from falling apart in the first place. That didn't go over too well, and he clearly did not understand the point I was driving at. Je thought I was trying to throw other people under the bus, since I used them as examples, so I was never able to drive home that point. He was incredulous when I quoted the very words of Jesus, when He said that "whoever divorces his wife..., causes her to commit adultery." The worship pastor at my former church caused his own wife to commit adultery. He responded by saying that I was trying to say that she was responsible for the adultery. Nothing couyld be further from the truth! I told him several times that what Jesus was saying, was that that worship pastor is held responsible for the adultery that she committed. I repeated several times, that I was only quoting Jesus. In hindsight, I should have told him that his disagreement was not with me, but with Christ.
We had a cordial end of discussion, where he said that he likes me and that we can still be friends. I said that I like him too, and that I am happy we brought him to our church, and that I love the worship that he has brought, and we shook hands. I told him I am going to miss playing and that this will be the first year in a long time, that I will not be playing at Christmas time. I have much more to share about that discussion, but I will save it for a later post.
I hear you. I just wish there were more churches that believe as we do.
C
Cap
Guest
Common law marriage and divorce by irreconcilable differences, are fruits of those who don't understand what exactly is a marriage. Where can I sign up for one of those waivers?
So you want to marry legally, in order to make sure that nobody in the church could argue that you are breaking the law, removing that objection from them? It wouldn't work, as it's just one of various objections, they'd just find another way to argue against it.
Most Christians can understand that legality has nothing to do with morality. Just because the government makes gay marriage legal does not mean it is right with God, and vice versa. This is so clear that anybody who chooses to ignore that is doing so wilfully. They won't be actually persuaded even if you did get a legal marriage licence. They'd just immediately reject it as the government choosing to recognise your sin. It's just today's excuse to argue with you, it's not the fundamental reason they're arguing with you.
But as @Cap said, polygamy is legal. Secular people sleep with as many different people as they like, and don't break a single law. In most of the West, anything goes. Everything is legal, including a lot of sin. You're completely free to be a polygamist, and are not breaking the law.
At the same time, no Western government provides the facility to legally register two simultaneous marriages, except in some very unusual exceptions (e.g. New Zealand recognises both marriages of immigrants who come from a country where they married legally, while still completely forbidding any citizen from procuring a second marriage licence overseas). But they allow gay marriages to be registered. This just shows that legal registration is completely irrelevant. Forget it, and look solely at the laws around who you are allowed to live with and have sex with, ie the actual fundamentals,.
Some US states do have some technicalities with common law marriage and/or cohabitation laws, that are worth being aware of. But they don't affect the overall argument on whether polygamy is illegal or not, they're rather details to be aware of if you live in those specific states.
The fundamental problem is that the church does not recognise what marriage even is. They think a government marriage licence = marriage. And think that two people living together without one are "living in sin". Completely contrary to all scripture. The foundation is completely wrong.
I would request one from your state's AG. I will meet with my attorney friend tomorrow night and se if he has any advice for you.Common law marriage and divorce by irreconcilable differences, are fruits of those who don't understand what exactly is a marriage. Where can I sign up for one of those waivers?
Well, I recognize that we can have a difference of opinion on this issue, and still have fellowship with one another, and yes, that is a typical cop-out argument from the anti-polys. Interestingly enoigh, Pastor Steven Anderson (Faithful Word), believes that polygamy should be legal, even though he believes that it is a sin. The flaw in the argument comes with the necessity to break the law, and while for some people, it is necessary to break man's laws in order to follow God's Law, that doesn't apply to all of us.
But you don't have to break man's laws to be a polygamist. It's legal. You keep stating it's illegal, but that is not true.
You just can't get a bit of paper about it. But it's completely legal to not have that piece of paper.
@Daniel DeLuca: Please note that I am not arguing with you so much as making sure that your incorrect view on the legality of marriage is not left unopposed, for the benefit of other readers. You are free to believe what you want, even if it is wrong, however I don't want other readers to see this and get the impression that polygamists are breaking the law. This is very important, because if that were the case then this website would be supporting something illegal, and that has wider ramifications. So if you can explain why you believe polygamy is generally illegal, feel free to do so, and we can discuss that. But please don't continue to just assert that it is without explaining your reasoning, because it has the potential to be confusing to other readers. It is somewhat peripheral to this discussion anyway.
Last edited:
Wow! I wish I could say “unbelievable!”, but I no longer feel that way. Sadly, it’s very believable.
Personally, I find this more objectionable and unacceptable than the third demand of theirs. For me, I’d be gone. Peace out! But then again, you’ve already stuck it out much longer than I would have. 
Best of luck to you, brother. Sounds like only a matter of time until they ask you to leave.
Daniel DeLuca said: ↑
If all they are going to do, is remove me from a post I reluctantly accepted in the first place, I am going to act like it is a major blow, but at the same time, I am relieved that that is the extent to which they have gone.
They are just too predictable.
I wanted to be wrong, but if they are 501C3, the spirit of religion is probably firmly entrenched.
If all they are going to do, is remove me from a post I reluctantly accepted in the first place, I am going to act like it is a major blow, but at the same time, I am relieved that that is the extent to which they have gone.
Yup
They are just too predictable.
I wanted to be wrong, but if they are 501C3, the spirit of religion is probably firmly entrenched.
Yes. I understand what you are saying. I am arguing more from their perspective. They can't argue that because it is illegal, we have to shun people and dismiss them from leadership, when in fact it is not. I even pointed out to him your position that legal marriage is not necessarily valid marriage, but I don't want to get entangled in that discussion with those who use that as a fallback. I want him to attempt to produce other arguments, which he probably already knows that I can shoot down.
Lord! Help me to stick out like a sore thumb!
My wife doesn't like my post-SBC plan.
I understand where you're coming from also.
But it's futile to try and achieve that through personally pursuing a legal marriage. Firstly, you won't succeed, and secondly, even if you did succeed, it would make next to no difference in the debate anyway.
Focus on your post-SBC plan, and your relationship with your wife, so that you can step forth together into that brave new world, as a team.
Well first off, what does it's legal status have to do with whether or not they expect lockstep agreement? They can't defend that idea from scripture. Marriage predates the state and falls under the authority of the family. Any church that tells you to submit to state licensure is violating Christ's words about respective authorities.
On the legality...it depends on your state. In many states, so long as you don't get a certificate it is legal. In some though that may be against laws on cohabitation or adultery. However Christians violate those same laws without narry a squeak from the pulpit. And they're never enforced. Which brings up a point. Even if there is a statute against it (de jure illegal), polygamy is everywhere de facto legal because it is not prosecuted. Furthermore under current Supreme Court jurisprudence a non-licensed sexual relationship within the home falls under privacy rights and cannot be made illegal. So it is de facto legal everywhere; so long as you don't seek legal recognition as a state marriage.
All a government license does for you is get access to government benefits for being married. They cannot require you to get one to marry some one or live with them or have sex with them. Bigamy, which is illegal, is having 2 marriage licenses at once. But no marriage requires a license, and that's based on legal principles older than our legal system.
There is no point in asking for an exemption; states don't do that sort of thing, they can't; there is no provision of law for it.
But I could be wrong, I'm not licensed to give legal advice.