The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: EC on April 18, 2017, 09:59:44 am
-
Hildale • How does Alvin Barlow regard the prosecution of Canadian polygamist Winston Blackmore?
To answer the question, Barlow walked to a bookshelf in his home here on the Utah-Arizona line. He picked up a copy of "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith." He turned to pages 49 and 50. The pages discuss the need to obey the government, but with a caveat.
"The law of man promises safety in temporal life," the final sentence says, "but the law of God promises that life which is eternal, even an inheritance at God's own right hand, secure from all the powers of the wicked one."
Barlow believes Blackmore, who is married to two of Barlow's daughters, has been obeying God's law.
"His conduct, in my estimation, is certainly not criminal," Barlow said. "Although there are statutes passed, they are not equitable and just."
Observers in two countries will be watching whether man's laws prevail against Blackmore. He and a co-defendant, James Oler, go on trial Tuesday in Cranbrook, British Columbia. Each defendant is charged with one count of polygamy and faces up to five years in prison.
There have been no successful polygyny prosecutions in Canada since 1899, according to researchers there. The law, as well as Canadian immigration and gender politics, are all factors in why Blackmore, who with 27 wives has been the most visible Canadian polygamist, is being tried now, said Melanie Heath, an associate professor of sociology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.
More: http://www.sltrib.com/news/4936580-155/canada-will-try-to-convict-polygamist
Put it in National News despite happening in America's hat because of the implications and focus.
-
Hey, if they already legalized gay marriage, why not polygamy? After all, polygamy has been accepted in most societies in history.
-
Hey, if they already legalized gay marriage, why not polygamy? After all, polygamy has been accepted in most societies in history.
It is one of those definitions of Biblical Marriage.
-
It is one of those definitions of Biblical Marriage.
The biblical definition is one man and one woman.
-
The biblical definition is one man and one woman.
God has been more accepting of polygamy than gay marriage in the OT. :smokin:
-
The biblical definition is one man and one woman.
That's one of many marriages in the Bible.
For example, a brother-in-law marrying his brother's wife (in addition to his own, aka polygamous)- Gen. 38:6-10
A man marrying his wife's slave- Gen. 30:4-5
Many wives and concubines- Judges 19:1-30
Taking female prisoners of war as your wives (this is actually a rule not just an example)- Deuteronomy 21:11-14
Rapist must marry victim after paying her father (another rule, not just example)- Deuteronomy 22:28-29
...and more..
Here is an info graphic w/ Biblical references to make it easy.
(https://upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com/nugget/4fad667a42542a00030018ba/attachments/biblemarriage.jpg)
-
That's one of many marriages in the Bible.
For example, a brother-in-law marrying his brother's wife (in addition to his own, aka polygamous)- Gen. 38:6-10
A man marrying his wife's slave- Gen. 30:4-5
Many wives and concubines- Judges 19:1-30
Taking female prisoners of war as your wives (this is actually a rule not just an example)- Deuteronomy 21:11-14
Rapist must marry victim after paying her father (another rule, not just example)- Deuteronomy 22:28-29
...and more..
Here is an info graphic w/ Biblical references to make it easy.
(https://upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com/nugget/4fad667a42542a00030018ba/attachments/biblemarriage.jpg)
I've been a teacher at my parish for nearly 20 years, teaching OT to 6th graders. That's one of the areas we pay scant attention to. Over the years, my teaching style has evolved, with a greater focus on hitting a few major points that they might remember years down the road. We usually have representation of upwards of 5-6 different middle schools (it's one of the ten biggest Catholic parishes in the US), so we spend a lot of time trying to build our own community.
-
Here is an info graphic w/ Biblical references to make it easy.
Excellent graphic, @AbaraXas.
-
I've been a teacher at my parish for nearly 20 years, teaching OT to 6th graders. That's one of the areas we pay scant attention to. Over the years, my teaching style has evolved, with a greater focus on hitting a few major points that they might remember years down the road. We usually have representation of upwards of 5-6 different middle schools (it's one of the ten biggest Catholic parishes in the US), so we spend a lot of time trying to build our own community.
We kind of paint this idealized view of the past when in reality, we would recognize very little of it. Marriage is just once example. Our concept of marriage, as a mutual choice, out of love, before God and the State, is rather a new concept. While in many cases across many cultures, it was a religious institution, it more often than not, was political or financial and arranged.
I don't bring this up to mock marriage but to point out something we all need to think about which is to separate the government from our sacrament. When it was a political rule in the Bible (versus a personal commitment), the rules were wide and varied.
-
We kind of paint this idealized view of the past when in reality, we would recognize very little of it. Marriage is just once example. Our concept of marriage, as a mutual choice, out of love, before God and the State, is rather a new concept. While in many cases across many cultures, it was a religious institution, it more often than not, was political or financial and arranged.
I don't bring this up to mock marriage but to point out something we all need to think about which is to separate the government from our sacrament. When it was a political rule in the Bible (versus a personal commitment), the rules were wide and varied.
The same goes for early American history, where marriages often occurred out of necessity. Let's face it, the sample size of unmarried men and women was small. One could get more land in Texas if married, but you had to convert to Catholicism.
Life on the frontier was tough, and people were forced to adapt.
-
Polygamy is very 'biblical' and is described all throughout the Bible. In fact, in some cases it was mandatory. For example, if your brother died (battle, illness, whatever) you were required to marry his wife into your family. Also, if you wanted to marry the youngest of several sisters, it was tradition to marry the older sisters first.
Another big change in the Biblical concept of sex and marriage is pedophilia. Traditionally when a young girl begins menstruation, it is time for her to marry and to begin having children. Marriage to girls 14 and 15 years old was quite common only two generations ago. The entire idea of the Quinceanera (15th birthday) is that the girl is young, healthy, fertile, and ready to be married.
Back then, due to disease, war, starvation, etc. there was no time to wait. People had children when and how they could, because who knows what may happen tomorrow.
Most of the modern attitudes toward marriage are recent constructs and are not strictly Biblical. Obviously there is nothing in the Bible about 'gay marriage' because such a thing was unheard of and unthinkable. It's an abomination before God.
-
We kind of paint this idealized view of the past when in reality, we would recognize very little of it. Marriage is just once example. Our concept of marriage, as a mutual choice, out of love, before God and the State, is rather a new concept. While in many cases across many cultures, it was a religious institution, it more often than not, was political or financial and arranged.
You're right. It's not so very long ago that a prospective husband was expected to ask the bride's father for her hand in marriage -- something with a long history. The practicalities of that are various, but it includes ensuring that the daughter and her offspring would be well provided for, and also that the effective merger of the two families was advantageous. Along those lines, arranged marriages were common among the English aristocracy until ... maybe WW1. When there's property and money and influence involved, such things tend to matter at least as much as romance.
OTOH, I've long suspected that the romantic aspects of marriage have always been more common among the lower classes, where much less is at stake materially. Even then, however, the need for the daughter to be provided for is a natural concern of her parents.
I don't bring this up to mock marriage but to point out something we all need to think about which is to separate the government from our sacrament. When it was a political rule in the Bible (versus a personal commitment), the rules were wide and varied.
That said, there's a broad overlap between the sacramental and legal aspects of marriage. We'll never truly be able to separate them, because marriage is not only a religious thing -- it's lived out in the world, with all that implies.
The thing about the Bible is that it's really practical about a lot of things, marriage being one of them. Jesus' description of marriage in Mark Chapter 10, for example, is as concise a discussion of marriage as you'll find anywhere. When you look at it, there are very real and practical social benefits to the "one flesh" aspect of marriage -- a good marriage tends to make for good kids and law-abiding men, for example. To promise before God, strengthens the meaning of the sacrament. (And, of course, it's of God....)
So, too, in secular society, there is an obvious public interest in protecting and promoting traditional marriage as best we can: research from across the political spectrum has shown that the mess of the inner city is in large part statistically explained by the absence of married, biological parents. And when a marriage goes wrong, there are legal consequences having to do with distribution of property, ensuring that children are properly provided for, and so on.
Where government/religious separation can and should be maintained, is in the area of what the law requires of churches as regards marriage -- the law must never say what a Church can and cannot consider to be "marriage."
-
Polygamy is very 'biblical' and is described all throughout the Bible. In fact, in some cases it was mandatory. For example, if your brother died (battle, illness, whatever) you were required to marry his wife into your family. Also, if you wanted to marry the youngest of several sisters, it was tradition to marry the older sisters first.
OTOH, St. Paul wrote in 1 Timothy that an "overseer" (bishop, priest, minister, what have you) "must be ... the husband of one wife," and it's likely that this reflects normal Jewish practice for religious leaders. In 1 Timothy, Paul seems to be applying this standard to non-Jewish "overseers" as well, in cultures where polygamy was probably more common.
In fact, reading through the New Testament, the standard practice among at least the Jews of Jesus' time seems to have been monogamous marriage, and that's apparently the usual arrangement even throughout most of the Old Testament - a few of the Big Names are polygamous, but I think in most of the OT stories, the men had only one wife.
-
Rapist must marry victim after paying her father (another rule, not just example)- Deuteronomy 22:28-29
No. A rapist would be put to death. See Deut. 22:25
Deut. 22:28 is in line with Ex. 22:16.
It is a longer explanation than that... but basically no.
-
All true. My only point is that polygamy was certainly normal and accepted in Biblical times. Hence the saying, "Be kind to widows and orphans." Back then, widows and orphans had to fend for themselves. Nobody would marry a 'used' (so to speak) woman. There could be no greater kindness than to bring them into your home. And to keep everything righteous, you would marry the woman.
Those were different times. In our hypersexualized culture, we think of polygamy mostly in terms of sex. But there was really much more to it than just that. In olden days, it was frequently the ultimate act of kindness. It saved many a widow's life, and allowed many women who would have otherwise lived a lonely, barren life, to bear children and to be a part of a loving family.
How many lonely, unattractive, women do we all know who will never marry and would love to be part of a beautiful family and have children of their own? I am simply not convinced that polygamy is such a terrible idea. Call me an unrealistic sentimental fool, but I think that there are cases where polygamy is the most beneficial thing to do for everyone involved, and for society at large.
-
The New Testament threw out some of the old testament rules.
Marriage is one man and one woman. Even if you sinfully have 26 live-in girlfriends you have only one wife.
-
The New Testament threw out some of the old testament rules.
That is literally impossible.
Marriage is one man and one woman. Even if you sinfully have 26 live-in girlfriends you have only one wife.
That has always been the intent, not just from the Brit Hadasha. There are exceptions, some quite legitimate (brother takes the widowed wife), some because of the hardness of man's (male and female) heart.
Marriage is a picture of Yeshua and His bride, and has always been so.
-
The guy should have been put away for extreme stupidity in having 27 wives as much as for polygamy. 27 wives!!!???? You'll never be able to watch your favorite tv shows. It's Home and Garden, Biggest Loser, Dancing with the Old Farts, etc. for the rest of your life. No sports for you.
8888crybaby
-
I have enough trouble remembering to pick up a birthday card and flowers for one person, much less 27.
-
"must be ... the husband of one wife,"
Actually, in the Greek, that is translated as one of four possible translations:
husband of one wife - singular absolute
husband of a wife - singular minimal
husband of at least one wife - plural minimal
husband of a certain wife - specific
The last one does not make sense so it can be disregarded. The other three are equally valid translations of the Greek.
-
I have enough trouble remembering to pick up a birthday card and flowers for one person, much less 27.
But he always has a supply of sammiches.
-
That's one of many marriages in the Bible.
For example, a brother-in-law marrying his brother's wife (in addition to his own, aka polygamous)- Gen. 38:6-10
A man marrying his wife's slave- Gen. 30:4-5
Many wives and concubines- Judges 19:1-30
Taking female prisoners of war as your wives (this is actually a rule not just an example)- Deuteronomy 21:11-14
Rapist must marry victim after paying her father (another rule, not just example)- Deuteronomy 22:28-29
...and more..
Which one of those covers a Pimp with his tricks? That's the one I am interested in exploring.
-
The Christians only had one wife. Polygamy had been eradicated in the Judaism by the time Christ came along, mostly due to the problems it had created.
1 Tim 3 is literally a "man with one(single) woman". anēr mia gunē
-
The Christians only had one wife. Polygamy had been eradicated in the Judaism by the time Christ came along, mostly due to the problems it had created.
1 Tim 3 is literally a "man with one(single) woman". anēr mia gunē
Actually, there are several possible translations
Husband of one wife - having one and only one (i.e not divorced and remarried)
Husband of a wife - at a minimum, married
Husband of at least one wife - having been married at least once, currently married to at least one wife
Husband of a certain wife - Does not make sense
The Greek 'mia' has been translated in other passages to reflect 'one', 'a', 'at least one', and 'a certain'. Also, polygamy was practiced by the Jews, mostly aristocrats due to the cost of a large household during Jesus time. It was the Greeks and Romans who did not.
-
Funny how it doesn't get mentioned in the New Testament as an acceptable practice.
You are torturing the text in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 to get it to say what you want it to say.
-
Funny how it doesn't get mentioned in the New Testament as an acceptable practice.
You are torturing the text in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 to get it to say what you want it to say.
I thought the Bible was a whole. We can ignore OT now?
-
I thought the Bible was a whole. We can ignore OT now?
Just selected parts.
I eat Bacon. Sometimes I remember to ask for forgiveness when I do. But I'm honestly not repentant about it.