Helping the Media & Information-gatherers by providing
news, reports, and insights from the pro-polygamy view.

Click to order DVD
Order Your Pro-Polygamy Passport ™

Rick Warren's Mistake, “Forbidding to Marry” Re-Defines Marriage

     By: Mark Henkel
Date: Feb 12, 2009
Word Count: 7000 words
Cross-Reference: Rick Warren, "Forbidding to Marry", Marriage Control

AUTHOR: Mark Henkel 
Mark Henkel is the National Polygamy Advocate 
and the Founder of the organization, 
the non-Mormon, cross-denominational, evangelical 
Christian Polygamy organization. He has been reported 
by ABC’s 20/20, The Associated Press, the 700 Club, 
The Washington Times, Newsweek, CourtTV, 
NBC's TODAY Show, and many more, as noted at  
Rick Warren's Mistake, "Forbidding to Marry" Re-Defines Marriage 
. . . . . . . . . by 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark Henkel 
Copyright (C) 2009 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 

The world-renowned Christian pastor and best-selling author explained that his support for a big government marriage control amendment in California was simply based on his not wanting marriage to be re-defined. But the invented “one man, one woman” dogma already re-defines marriage by prohibiting polygamy – a ban which the same Scriptures (that Warren believes) forewarned as a “doctrine of devils” called "forbidding to marry."

==============   OUTLINE   ============== 
3.     NBC’s   DATELINE 
9.     "MORAL   LAW"   AND   GRACE 
16.     FREEDOM   FOR   ALL 
At   the   historic   Inauguration   of   the   United   States’   first   African   American   President,   Barack   Obama,   of   January   20,   2009,   renowned   Pastor   Rick   Warren   offered   the   official   opening   prayer.     At   the   very   start   of   the   prayer,   Warren   began,   “Let   us   pray.     Almighty   God,   our   Father,   everything   we   see   and   everything   we   can’t   see   exists   because   of   you   alone.     It   all   comes   from   you.     It   all   belongs   to   you.     It   all   exists   for   your   glory.     History   is   your   story.   The   scripture   tells   us,   Hear   O   Israel,   the   Lord   is   our   God.     The   Lord   is   One.   And   you   are   the   compassionate   and   merciful   one,   and   you   are   loving   to   everyone   you   have   made.” 
By   therewith   identifying   the   name   of   Israel   before   all   the   world   watching   this   historic   inauguration,   Warren   openly   vocalized   the   name   of   one   of   the   most   famous   polygamists   throughout   all   of   history.     Indeed,   all   “12   Tribes   of   Israel”   were   born   of   the   four   wives   of   Jacob,   whom   God   re-named   as   Israel.     Clearly,   the   namesake   progenitor   of   the   people   of   Israel   was   a   God-blessed   polygamist   -   against   whom   no   verse   in   the   Bible   reproved   or   corrected   for   such   polygamy.     Even   Jesus   Christ   is   reported   by   the   Bible   in   Matthew   8:11   as   saying   that   that   same   polygamist   would   be   seen   in   Heaven. 
However,   Pastor   Warren   has   also   publicly   declared   that   he   believes   that   polygamy   is   a   definition   of   marriage   that   he   would   oppose.     Yet,   the   Bible   he   believes   in   proves   that   anti-polygamy   is   very   much   anti-Israel.     By   his   making   such   a   declaration,   Warren’s   assertion   unwittingly   “opposes”   the   progenitor   of   the   very   same   Israel   he   named   in   his   Inaugural   prayer. 
And   with   that   anti-biblical   opposition,   Pastor   Warren   has   thereby   succumbed   to   the   temptation   of   what   Christians   understand   as   idolatry.     Although   reminding   all   the   world   of   the   one   true   God   and   the   polygamist   name   of   Israel   in   the   Inaugural   prayer,   Warren   has   otherwise   allowed   himself   to   turn   to   the   false   god   of   big   socialist   government   for   anti-Israel   marriage   control.    
Pastor   Rick   Warren   is   a   noted,   quite   kindhearted,   evangelical   Christian   author   of   a   best-selling   self-help   book,   “The   Purpose   Driven   Life.”     He   is   also   the   beloved   pastor   of   Saddleback   Church   -   a   23,000-member   evangelical   mega-church   in   Lake   Forest,   California. 
On   August   16,   2008,   Warren   hosted   a   public   religious   forum   for   both   Presidential   candidates,   Democrat   Barack   Obama   and   Republican   John   McCain,   to   discuss   social   issues   –   most   notably,   what   evangelicals   view   as   pre-natal   infanticide   (abortion)   and   the   biological   impossibility   of   “same   sex   marriage.”     Even   though   Warren   clearly   does   not   support   the   hyper-liberal   positions   of   the   Democrat,   he   defended   his   decision   to   invite   both   sides,   saying   that   he   believed   that   Barack   Obama   should   be   offered   the   opportunity   to   present   such   views   too. 
Along   with   other   media,   Time   magazine   has   hailed   Rick   Warren   as   “unquestionably   the   U.S.'s   most   influential   and   highest-profile   churchman.”     Many   people   and   pundits   believe   that   Rick   Warren   could   be   the   “new   Billy   Graham”   to   Presidents   and   all   America,   for   this   generation. 
After   the   election,   President   Elect   Obama   returned   the   favor   to   the   evangelical   pastor   on   December   17,   2008,   publicly   declaring   that   Warren   would   be   the   clergyman   to   offer   the   opening   prayer   at   the   Presidential   Inauguration.     That   announcement   sparked   outrage   by   homosexuals   and   their   liberal   supporters.     After   all,   Rick   Warren   had   been   a   visible   advocate   for   the   November   7,   2008,   referendum-passage   of   a   big   government   marriage   control   amendment   to   California’s   state   constitution.     The   amendment   codified   the   actually-unbiblical   re-definition   of   marriage   as   only   being   defined   as   “a   man   and   a   woman.” 
President-Elect   Obama   responded   to   the   controversy   of   his   selection.     Echoing   Warren’s   same   defense   from   the   August,   2008,   forum,   Obama   said   that   he   had   selected   Rick   Warren   to   show   everyone   that   Obama   is   committed   to   listening   to   others   who   have   different   views   –   even   if   they   do   not   align   with   Obama’s   own   hyper-liberal   views. 
3.     NBC’s   DATELINE 
NBC-TV   responded   immediately   by   promoting   its   pending   “Dateline”   show   of   December   19,   2008:   Rick   Warren   had   given   an   interview   to   NBC’s   Ann   Curry. 
Discussing   the   November,   2008,   referendum-passage   of   California’s   big   government   marriage   control   amendment,   Curry   suggested   that   Warren’s   opposition   to   what   evangelicals   view   as   the   biological   impossibility   of   “same   sex   marriage”   was   hurtful   to   homosexuals   who   “only   want   to   start   their   own   family”   and   adopt.     She   interrogatively   declared,   “There   is   this   specter   of   pain   that   your   position   will   undoubtedly   cause,   and   I   wonder   how   you   reconcile   that.” 
In   NBC’s   online   promo,   Rick   Warren   offered   his   un-edited,   complete   response,   “For   5,000   years,   every   single   culture,   every   single   religion,   has   defined   marriage   as   a   man   and   a   woman.     Not   just   Christianity   -   Judaism,   Islam,   Hinduism,   Buddhism.     Every   single   religion,   and   every   single   culture,   has   defined   marriage   between   a   man   and   a   woman.     Why   take   that   word?     I   mean,   I   even   have   gay   friends,   like   Al   Rantel   at   KABC,   who   is   opposed   to   using   the   word,   ‘marriage,’   for   gay   relation.     Use   another   term.     I   am   opposed   to   marriage   being   used   for   a   relationship   between   a   sister   and   a   brother.     I   would   oppose   that.     I   would   oppose   the   term,   marriage,   being   used   for   an   older   man   and   a   baby   girl.     I   would   oppose   that.     I   would   be   opposed   for   the   word,   marriage,   being   used   for   one   man   and   six   wives   -   or   one   wife   and   six   husbands.     I   think   -   God   says,   it's   not   my   issue   -   God   said   in   Genesis   1,   a   man   and   a   woman   shall   cling   to   each   other   for   life.” 
Warren   was   semantically   correct   in   noting   that   marriage   has   historically   always   been   defined   as   occurring   with   opposite   genders.     Conservatives   note   that   the   anatomical   impossibility   for   homosexuals   to   share   coitus   is   the   biological   reason   why   the   modern   construct   of   “same   sex   marriage”   has   been   definitively   excluded   from   the   definition   of   marriage   throughout   history.     So,   while   it   is   semantically   true   that   marriage   has   been   universally   defined   as   occurring   between   a   man   and   a   woman,   it   is   not   true   that   such   semantics   thereby   excluded   polygamy.     Polygynous   marriage   is   indeed   “a   man   and   a   woman”   -   in   each   of   the   man’s   individual   marriages   with   each   wife.     And,   although   occurring   far   less   frequently   in   history,   polyandrous   marriage   meets   the   definition   in   the   same   way   -   but   in   reverse. 
Aside   from   the   semantics,   and   notwithstanding   the   pastor’s   focus   on   “gay   marriage,”   Rick   Warren’s   statement   is   simply   untrue   regarding   polygamy.     Many   cultures,   religions,   and   the   Bible   have   always   included   polygamy   within   the   definition   of   marriage. 
Pastor   Warren’s   statement   was   definitely   incorrect   about   “every   single   culture”   and   polygamy. 
Many   indigenous   cultures   around   the   world   have   included   forms   of   polygamy   in   their   marriage   definition   -   including   South   American,   Indonesian   (Melanesian),   and   African   tribal   polygamous   cultures,   even   today. 
Over   the   last   three   years,   one   particular   TV   series,   called   “Tribal   Odyssey,”   has   demonstrated   a   number   of   such   examples.     The   series   has   appeared   on   such   television   networks   as   National   Geographic,   Discovery,   and   most   recently   (on   December   28,   2008),   the   Travel   Channel. 
As   that   documentary   series   shows,   the   Zoe   tribe   (on   the   Amazon,   in   Brazil),   the   Wolani   tribe   (in   West   Papua,   in   Melanesia),   and   the   Himba   tribe   (in   Namibia,   in   West   Africa)   all   continue   the   ancestral   traditions   of   their   own   unique   cultures.     Such   tribes   obviously   do   not   define   marriage   “by   government.”     More   importantly,   as   these   televised   episodes   prove,   the   definition   of   marriage   in   these   indigenous   cultures   very   clearly   does   include   polygamy.     Even   though   many   people   may   perceive   such   cultures   as   “un-civilized”   by   modern   standards,   one   cannot   deny   that   such   cultures   do   exist. 
Because   they   do   exist,   then   one   cannot   exclude   them   in   a   statement   about   “every   single   culture.”     Therefore,   Warren’s   statement   was   simply   incorrect.   “Every   single   culture”   for   the   past   5,000   years   -   and   even   still,   today   -   has   most   definitely   not   excluded   polygamy   in   its   definition   of   marriage. 
Moreover,   each   of   the   religions   he   mentioned   also   prove   that   Rick   Warren’s   statement   was   incorrect   about   “every   single   religion”   and   polygamy. 
Polygamy   was   not   ever   banned   by   original   Christianity.     The   “ban”   was   invented   a   few   centuries   after   Christ   when   Christianity   became   utterly   transformed.     No   longer   being   the   original   persecuted   faith   of   the   humble   disciples   and   martyrs,   it   metamorphosed   into   the   dominating   political   powerhouse   of   the   Catholic   institution.     Subsequently,   Catholicism   subtly   found   ways   to   integrate   some   of   the   false   god   theologies   and   doctrines   of   the   Romans. 
Leaning   upon   Catholicism’s   newly-developing   and   inventive   notions   of   anti-sexual   asceticism   (out   of   which   priests   and   nuns   were   ordered   to   unbiblically   never   marry),   Catholic   popes   re-defined   marriage   for   their   religion   with   their   new   anti-biblical   invention   of   the   “one   man,   one   woman”   dogma.     Depriving   the   masses   access   to   read   the   Scriptures   for   themselves   at   that   time,   they   mis-directed   the   translated-from-Greek-text   meaning   of   1   Timothy   3:2,12   and   Titus   1:6   to   imply   that   those   Scriptural   instructions   given   only   for   bishops,   elders,   and   deacons   to   be   the   husband   of   their   “first   wife”   (i.e.,   to   not   be   divorced)   somehow   means   that   supposedly   every   married   man   may   only   be   the   husband   of   “one   wife.”     As   the   mammoth   Catholic   institution   acquired   dominating   control   over   most   Western   governments,   it   used   those   subordinated   governments   to   coerce   others   to   embrace   its   manmade   doctrines. 
Almost   a   thousand   years   after   Catholicism’s   “one   man,   one   woman”   doctrinal   changes,   the   Protestant   Reformation   (“protesting”   Catholicism’s   manmade   doctrines)   corrected   and   brought   Christianity   to   “sola   scriptura”   (only   Scripture)   as   the   only   valid   standard   for   genuine   doctrine.     The   Reformation   also   planted   the   seeds   of   what   would   become   Americanism   with   the   U.S.   Constitutionalism   of   disallowing   a   religion   like   the   Catholic   powerhouse   to   control   government. 
Some   early   reformers   acknowledged   that   the   Bible   never   forbade   polygyny.     “Martin   Luther   at   one   time   accepted   polygamy   as   a   practical   necessity,”   noted   Jonathan   Turley,   renowned   Constitutional   law   professor,   in   a   USA   Today   op-ed.     However,   the   early   reformers   did   not   fully   complete   that   Reformation.     Instead,   most   Protestants   simply   continued   the   unwittingly   inherited   but   non-scriptural   Catholic   invention   of   “one   man,   one   woman”   dogma.     Since   the   1990s,   though,   a   recognized   movement   of   evangelicals   from   all   Christian   denominations   has   emerged,   called,   Christian   Polygamy.     Based   on   the   Bible   and   an   established   “love-not-force”   standard   for   un-coerced   consenting-adults,   these   modern   Bible-based   reformers   are   specifically   “Continuing   the   Reformation”   –   the   actual   slogan   of   the   organization   for   Christian   Polygamy. 
Judaism   (the   forebear   of   Christianity,   as   Christ   was   Jewish)   is   the   religion   of   the   descendants   of   Israel   –   the   previously-mentioned   famous   polygamist   whose   four   wives   bore   the   “12   Tribes   of   Israel.”     The   Jewish   sacred   text,   the   Torah,   was   written   by   polygamist   Moses   (who   had   two   wives   himself)   –   and   it   includes   polygamy   regulations   in   such   verses   that   Christians   know   as   Exodus   21:10   and   Deuteronomy   21:15.     The   “one   man,   one   woman”   invention   insultingly   asserts   that   all   the   Jews   are   “illegitimate”   descendents   (i.e.,   technically   calling   them,   “bastards”)   of   supposedly   “unmarried”   parents   -   thereby   proving   that   anti-polygamy   is   definitively   anti-Israel.     Judaism   did   not   even   consider   embracing   “one   man,   one   woman”   dogma   until   about   the   year   1000   when   a   Talmudist   teacher,   Rabbeinu   Gershom,   made   it   the   new   standard   for   Jewish   marriages.     Yet,   not   all   Jewish   groups   accepted   the   new   prohibition,   either.     That   rabbi’s   acquiescence   was   yet   another   example   of   the   Catholic   institution’s   political   power   to   control   even   people   outside   its   religion   –   to   the   mind-controlling   point   of   such   another   religion   actually   denying   the   marriages   of   its   very   own   polygamist   progenitor,   Israel.     Even   so,   as   Professor   Turley   also   pointed   out,   “Polygamy   is   still   present   among   Jews   in   Israel,   Yemen   and   the   Mediterranean.”     And   some   of   them   are   also   in   the   United   States,   as   a   John   Stossel   Special   Report   on   ABC-TV’s   show,   “20/20,”   showed   in   an   interview   with   a   Jewish   polygamous   family   from   the   Chicago   area. 
Islam   was   founded   around   the   year   600   by   its   religion’s   polygamist   “prophet,”   Mohammad.     The   Muslim   sacred   text,   the   Qur’an,   includes   Verse   4:3   which   specifically   limits   regular   Muslim   men   to   marrying   no   more   than   four   wives.     The   “prophet”   Mohammad   himself,   however,   married   many   more   than   that   limit,   with   his   many   wives   known   by   Muslims   as   the   “Mothers   of   the   believers.”     Any   Muslim   who   rejects   polygamy   rejects   the   Islamic   religion   itself   and   its   founding   polygamist   “prophet.” 
In   Hinduism,   the   Baudhayana   Dharmashastra   (in   Prasna   I,   Adhyaya   8,   Kandika   16,   verses   1-8)   details   how   many   wives   a   man   in   each   of   the   four   castes   (societal   classes)   may   marry.     A   man   in   the   first   caste   may   marry   four   wives,   the   second   caste   is   allowed   three,   the   third   caste   is   allowed   two,   and   the   fourth   caste   is   allowed   one   wife. 
Buddhism   has   no   sanction   for   or   against   polygamy.     It   is   allowed   where   local   traditions   embrace   polygamy.     Tibetan   Buddhists   are   even   known   as   one   of   the   few   peoples   on   the   planet   whereat   the   reverse   of   polygyny   -   that   is,   cultural   polyandry   –   occurs:   one   wife   with   more   than   one   husband.     Encyclopedia   Britannica   explains   that   -   although   it   is   not   common   -   that   polyandrous   kind   of   “polygamy   was   practiced   on   a   limited   scale”   in   Tibet. 
Before   concluding   this   point   about   religions,   there   is   also   one   other   well-known   religion   that   embraced   polygamy,   which   Warren   did   not   mention:   Mormonism.     That   new   religion,   begun   in   the   early   1800s,   has   always   been   opposed   by   evangelical   Christianity. 
Founded   by   the   religion’s   “prophet,”   Joseph   Smith,   who   reportedly   discovered   the   “Book   of   Mormon,”   his   newly-created   religion   of   Mormonism   eventually   developed   specific   doctrines   that   religiously   obligate   women   to   a   “duty”   of   polygamy   -   from   their   Doctrine   &   Covenants   chapter   132   to   the   official   Discourses   from   Smith’s   successor   super-polygamist   “prophet,”   Brigham   Young.     As   the   new   religion   grew,   Americans   were   unwittingly   misled   into   thinking   that   all   forms   of   polygamy   are   supposedly   based   on   that   one,   very   young   religion’s   doctrines.     It   was   Mormonism’s   visibly   “obligatory”   doctrines   upon   women   that   led   to   the   original   anti-polygamy   laws   -   effectively   “throwing   the   baby   out   with   the   bathwater”   regarding   un-criminalized   polygamy   for   any   non-obligated,   un-coerced   consenting   adults   who   equally   oppose   such   “obligatory”   doctrines   of   Mormonism. 
By   1890,   the   leadership   of   what   would   eventually   be   seen   as   the   so-called   “mainstream”   Latter   Day   Saints   (LDS)   responded   to   such   anti-polygamy   laws   by   mandating   the   Catholic   coerced   dogma   of   “one   man,   one   woman”   for   its   own   religion   too.     However,   doctrinally   “obligatory”   polygamy   had   been   too   deeply   connected   to   the   core   purpose   of   the   entire   religion   itself.     Many   dedicated   fundamentalist   adherents,   therefore,   viewed   that   anti-polygamy   change   as   heretical   apostasy.     In   the   same   way   that   Protestants   rejected   the   heresy   of   Catholicism   and   its   invention   of   doctrines   that   contradict   the   Christian   religion,   many   dedicated   Mormons   left   the   heresy   of   “mainstream”   Mormonism   and   its   inventions   of   doctrines   that   contradict   the   Mormon   religion.     Leaving   the   “mainstream”   LDS,   they   became   known   as   Fundamentalist   Latter   Days   Saints   (FLDS),   subsequently   and   repeatedly   subdividing   into   various   mini-sects   ever   since. 
For   anyone   who   intellectually   investigates   the   religious   ideas   and   purposes   of   the   overall   Mormon   religion,   even   when   the   investigator   personally   rejects   the   religion,   the   religion’s   principles   make   it   evident   that   the   Fundamentalist   Mormons   really   are   the   “true   Mormons.”     With   Mormonism’s   seemingly   imaginative   doctrines   of   “pre-existence   of   souls,”   “priesthood   keys,”   and   a   biological   multi-level   marketing   plan   with   children   unto   becoming   gods   and   building   new   universes,   Mormonism   without   Mormon   Polygamy   is   like   Christianity   without   Christ.     It   is   intellectually   impossible. 
Ironically,   it   was   the   modern   “mainstream”   Mormons   who   were   among   the   most   vocal   in   California,   alongside   Pastor   Rick   Warren,   in   supporting   that   State’s   big   government   marriage   control   amendment   in   November,   2008.     Yet,   Warren’s   statement   was   surprisingly   silent   about   Mormonism   in   his   list   of   “every   single   religion”   and   marriage.     Indeed,   this   “silence”   is   part   of   a   new,   larger   pattern   for   all   evangelical   marriage   controllers.     Namely,   in   public,   while   opposing   their   own   fellow   evangelical   Christians   who   support   Biblical   polygamy,   evangelical   marriage   controllers   will   welcome   and   even   praise   the   “mainstream”   Mormons   for   now   supporting   the   Catholic   “one   man,   one   woman”   invention.     Yet,   behind   the   four   walls   of   almost   every   evangelical   church,   those   same   Christians   will   always   privately   say   that   numerous   Mormon   doctrines   make   that   religion   a   “cult.”     Whether   or   not   Rick   Warren   has   verbalized   such   words   privately   in   his   own   church   may   not   be   publicly   known.     Even   so,   the   “audible”   silence   about   Mormonism   in   his   declared   list   of   “every   single   religion”   regarding   marriage   still   “deafeningly”   indicates   the   same   hypocrisy   of   the   larger   pattern   –   even   if   unintentionally. 
Conclusively,   after   looking   into   all   of   these   religions,   it   is   obvious   that   Pastor   Rick   Warren’s   statement   was   simply   incorrect   about   “every   religion.”     Polygamy   has   most   definitely   not   been   excluded   in   “every   single   religion”   for   the   past   5,000   years. 
And   most   definitely,   Warren’s   statement   was   also   wholly   incorrect   about   the   Bible   and   polygamy. 
The   Genesis   2:24   “one   flesh”   verse   that   he   mentioned   without   citation   did   not   –   and   could   not   -   ban   polygamy.     (Warren   had   simply   misspoken   when   he   said   it   was   in   Genesis   1.)       The   verse   clearly   means   that   a   man   can   be   “one   flesh”   with   each   of   his   wives   in   the   same   way   that   1   Corinthians   6:17   shows   Christ   being   “one   spirit”   with   each   of   His   Christian   believers.     Moreover,   that   very   same   Genesis   2:24   verse   was   written   by   polygamist   Moses   who   was   “one   flesh”   with   each   of   his   Bible-recorded   two   wives   (Shemitic   Zipporah   of   Exodus   2:21   and   the   Hamitic   Ethiopian   woman   of   Numbers   12:1).     No   God-inspired   author   (which   Christians   believe   Moses   was)   would   ever   write   a   doctrine   that   supposedly   condemns   his   very   own   family   to   hell!     Such   an   absurd   suggestion   is   a   theological   non-sequitur   –   it’s   logically   impossible. 
In   Matthew   19,   when   Jesus   Christ   later   re-quoted   Moses’   “one   flesh”   verse,   Jesus   was   obviously   condemning   anti-marriage   divorce   -   not   banning   pro-marriage   polygamy.     Indeed,   Jesus   never   condemned   Moses   (or   any   Biblical   polygamist,   for   that   matter)   for   his   “unrepented”   polygamy.     Further   proving   the   point,   in   Matthew   25:1-13,   Jesus   told   a   parable   in   which   he   metaphorically   described   Himself   as   a   polygamist   coming   to   marry   the   “five   wise   virgins,”     i.e.,   half   the   churches   who   are   ready   for   Him.     For   Christians,   a   truly   sinless   Christ   could   never   have   told   such   a   story   that   way   if   polygamy   was   a   sin,   of   course. 
Then   there   are   all   those   Biblical   heroes   who   were   polygamists.       When   I   (Mark   Henkel)   appeared   on   that   same   aforementioned   Special   Report   with   John   Stossel   on   ABC-TV’s   “20/20”   –   labeled   on   the   broadcast   as   the   “National   Polygamy   Advocate”   –   I   addressed   this   issue.     "If   they're   saying   that   [polygamy]   is   immoral,   they're   calling   the   greatest   heroes   in   the   Bible   -   which   they   believe   in   -   they're   calling   them   immoral.     They're   saying   that   Abraham,   with   his   three   wives,   was   immoral.   Jacob   [Israel]   had   four   wives.   David   had   seven   known,   named   wives   before   Bathsheba." 
And   indeed,   Warren’s   statement   declared   his   “opposition”   to   David   and   that   same   hero’s   marriages   –   even   opposing   God   Himself.     That   is,   the   Bible   says   in   2   Samuel   12:8   that   God   told   David   that   He   had   given   David   all   his   wives   –   and   said   He   would   have   given   him   even   more.     As   Pastor   Warren   most   likely   knows,   the   Scriptures   also   repeatedly   say   that   the   Holy   Spirit   was   on   David   (1   Samuel   16:13   and   2   Samuel   23:2.)     Doctrinally,   this   becomes   very   dangerous   territory   for   Pastor   Warren’s   soul.     Such   a   declared   opposition   to   Spirit-filled   David’s   God-given   polygamous   family   could   be   recognized   as   what   Jesus   called   the   “never-forgivable”   sin   of   “blasphemy   against   the   Holy   Ghost,”   in   Matthew   12:32.     Doctrine-wise,   that   is   a   grave   error   which   no   Christian   ever   wants   to   make.     Even   so,   anti-polygamy   does   present   itself   to   “blaspheme   the   Holy   Ghost”   in   accusing   the   Spirit   of   sin,   with   regards   to   polygamy,   according   to   the   same   Bible   that   Warren   believes. 
Once   again,   Warren’s   statement   was   incorrect   about   polygamy   and   the   Bible   too.     (For   any   other   biblical   question   on   this   issue,   the   web-site   provides   every   argument   of   proof   as   well.) 
Regarding   Pastor   Warren’s   statement,   the   many   stories   of   polygamists   in   the   Scriptures   –   many   occurring   less   than   5,000   years   ago   –   show   that   the   Bible,   itself,   absolutely   did   include   polygamy   in   the   definition   of   marriage. 
9.     "MORAL   LAW"   AND   GRACE 
When   NBC   finally   aired   the   Warren   interview,   editors   had   snipped   the   promo   quote   into   incomplete,   unconnected   segments.     Moreover,   NBC’s   online   transcript   of   the   broadcast   also   had   significant   but   subtle   changes   from   that   which   had   actually   been   shown   in   the   final   broadcast.     On   air   and   in   the   transcript,   the   anti-polygamy   reference   was   -   surprisingly   -   barely   mentioned. 
In   the   edited,   resultant   broadcast,   Curry   asked   how   Warren’s   use   of   Biblical   law   against   homosexual   behavior   could   be   reconciled   with   not   using   the   Bible’s   food   laws.     Warren   explained,   “there   are   three   kind   kinds   of   laws   in   the   Bible   that   are   very   different.   There's   civil   law,   which   is   for   the   nation   of   Israel.   There's   ceremonial   law,   which   is   for   the   Jewish   priesthood.   And   there   is   moral   law,   which   is   for   everybody.   The   laws   about   eating   fish   and   stuff,   those   are   civil   and   ceremonial   laws   for   Israel.   No   Christian   follows   those.” 
Warren’s   response   had   simply   deferred   to   standard,   evangelical   Christianity’s   doctrinal   understanding   of   the   New   Covenant   of   being   “under   Grace”   (receiving   the   gift   of   salvation   by   Jesus   Christ).     Therefore,   saved   by   Christ   through   faith,   Christian   believers   are   no   longer   “under   the   Law”   of   the   Old   Testament. 
Rick   Warren   was   differentiating   that   “being   under   Grace”   means   that   Christians   are   only   bound   to   the   Old   Testament’s   “moral   laws”   –   “for   everybody.”     Yet,   in   using   his   own   definitions   there,   the   same   “moral   law”   of   Leviticus   18:22   that   prohibits   same-sex   behavior   includes   the   “moral   law”   of   four   verses   earlier,   Leviticus   18:18.     This   other   verse   openly   allows   and   regulates   polygamy   –   by   only   prohibiting   a   man’s   marriage   to   two   sisters   at   the   same   time   while   they   are   both   alive.     Such   specificity   in   this   other   verse   in   the   same   chapter   would   be   unnecessary   if   polygamy   was   already   banned   elsewhere   by   the   “moral   law”   anyway.     But   there   is   no   such   ban   of   polygamy   anywhere   throughout   the   Old   or   New   Testaments.     Even   if   Warren   were   to   then   posit   that   Leviticus   18:18   is   a   “civil   law”   (which   he   said   does   not   apply   for   Christians),   then   the   fact   that   that   verse   absolutely   regulated   polygamy   -   and   did   not   acknowledge   any   “moral   law”   that   prohibits   polygamy   -   still   proves   that   polygamy   was   never   prohibited   by   any   “moral   law.”     That   is,   whether   one   identifies   Leviticus   18:18   as   a   “moral   law”   or   as   a   “civil   law,”   it   still   proves   either   way   that   polygamy   was   not   banned   by   any   “moral   law.” 
Actually,   as   noted   previously   herein,   other   verses   additionally   allow   and   regulate   polygamy   in   the   Old   Testament.     Exodus   21:10   begins   with   the   clause,   “If   he   take   him   another   wife.”       And   Deuteronomy   21:15   begins   with   the   clause,   “If   a   man   have   two   wives.”     Whether   one   views   those   as   “moral   laws”   or   “civil   laws,”   the   existence   of   those   verses   while   “under   the   Law”   further   proves   that   polygamy   did   not   violate   any   “moral   law.”     Polygamy   was   definitely   allowed   -   so   much   so   that   it   was   regulated,   even   “under   the   Law.” 
So,   Warren’s   anti-polygamy   responses   would   actually   make   marriage   doctrine   in   the   New   Covenant   to   be   more   legalistically   restrictive   (i.e.,   what   Christians   would   call,   being   “Law-based”)   in   these   current   times   of   “being   under   Grace”   than   marriage   doctrine   had   ever   been   during   the   more   rigid   times   of   “being   under   the   Law.”     (It   is   additionally   ironic   that   most   Christian   marriage   controllers   who   claim   to   be   “under   Grace”   and   no   longer   “under   the   Law”   would   then   hypocritically   do   the   opposite,   as   they   turn   to   the   false   god   of   big   socialist   government   to   make   more   human   law   to   more     legalistically   restrict   what   consenting   adults   do   for   marriage   than   had   ever   happened   in   the   Bible.) 
Back   in   the   1990s,   I   (Mark   Henkel)   defined   this   particular   anti-polygamy   unbiblical   dichotomy   as   “The   Grace-Law   Hypocrisy.”     Namely,   anti-polygamists   frequently   assert   a   rather-insulting   falsehood   that   suggests   that   pro-polygamists   who   believe   the   Bible   are   supposedly   “Old   Testament   based”   –   thereby   deceptively   trying   to   subtly   discredit   Christian   pro-polygamists   as   supposedly   “not   being   under   Grace”   (i.e.,   ”not   Christian”).     Clearly,   as   proven   by   this   “Grace-Law   Hypocrisy,”   that   assertion   has   it   backwards.     Anti-polygamists   are   the   ones   being   less   “under   Grace”   because   they   are   the   ones   who   are   choosing   to   be   more   legalistically   restrictive   on   marriage   doctrine   than   even   “the   Law”   had   ever   been   regarding   polygamy.     In   contrast,   most   non-Mormon,   Christian-based   polygamists,   specifically,   are   indeed   evangelical   “New   Testament   based”   Christians   “under   Grace”   of   New   Covenant   Christianity.     Further   proving   this   fact,   after   I   had   given   an   in-depth   interview   with   Pat   Robertson’s   “700   Club”   Christian   news   network   a   few   years   ago,   their   televised   report   accurately   acknowledged   Christian   Polygamists   specifically   by   the   term,   “evangelical   Christians.” 
Ultimately,   this   all   reveals   that   Pastor   Rick   Warren’s   explanation   about   “moral   laws”   actually   supports   polygamy   according   to   the   Bible   -   although   he   may   not   have   realized   it.     The   Scripture’s   “moral   laws”   (even   the   “civil   laws”)   obviously   do   include   the   allowance   for   -   via   regulation   of   -   polygyny.     And   the   New   Testament’s   New   Covenant   of   Grace   would   not   make   marriage   doctrine   –   or   any   doctrine   -   even   more   legalistically   restrictive   than   the   doctrine   had   ever   been   under   the   Old   Testament   Law. 
Ultimately,   in   the   report   as   it   aired,   the   only   outward   reference   to   Warren’s   opposition   to   polygamy   was   when   Curry   said,   “But   the   Bible   does   not   say   that   a   marriage   is   only   between   a   man   or   a   woman,   in   fact,   the   Bible   says   that   King   Solomon   had   700   wives—“     Rick   Warren   interrupted,   saying,   “Yeah,   well   he   was   wrong   too.” 
Again,   Warren   was   semantically   correct   but   did   not   mean   it   that   way.     It   is   true   that   the   Bible   shows   that   Solomon   had   erred   in   multiplying   so   many   wives   –   1000   (700   wives   and   300   concubines).     But   polygamy   was   not   the   issue.     The   Bible   clearly   shows   that   Solomon’s   sin   there   was   in   the   excess   hoarding   and   embracing   idolatry   –   but   not   polygamy. 
Deuteronomy   17:16-17   is   what   Warren   would   obviously   consider   to   be   an   Old   Testament   “civil   law”   regulation   –   an   ordinance   that   simply   prohibited   any   Israelite   king   (but   not   talking   about   everyday   Israelite   citizens)   from   multiplying   horses   and   wives   to   himself.     Very   clearly,   that   regulation   only   prohibited   hoarding   -   i.e.,   multiplying.     Obviously,   a   prohibition   against   hoarding   does   not   mean   that   the   ordinance   is   requiring   a   limitation   of   only   one. 
When   Solomon   multiplied   up   to   1,000   wives   and   concubines,   he   was   undeniably   hoarding   (multiplying),   just   as   it   had   been   definitely   prohibited   by   this   specific   Israelite   “civil   law”   for   its   kings.       Such   excess   hoarding   eventually   led   to   idolatry. 
When   1   Kings   11:3-4   subsequently   reproved   Solomon   for   violating   that   “civil   law”   from   Deuteronomy,   it   clearly   demonstrated   that   polygamy   was   not   any   part   of   the   sins   being   identified.     Moreover,   it   directly   declared   that   Solomon’s   “heart   was   not   perfect   with   the   Lord   his   God,   as   was   the   heart   of   David   his   father.”     Spirit-filled   David   had   married   eight   known-named   wives,   plus   ten   more   women   who   were   not   reported   by   name   in   the   Bible.     While   there   is   a   difference   between   multiplying   (to   1,000,   as   Solomon   did)   versus   that   of   only   adding   (to   18,   as   David   did),   the   “civil   law”   for   Israelite   kings   clearly   did   not   limit   their   marriages   to   only   one   woman.     To   suggest   that   that   “civil   law”   for   kings   supposedly   prohibited   having   more   than   one   wife   is   to   equally   absurdly   suggest   that   it   also   prohibited   having   more   than   one   horse.     Or,   to   put   it   in   today’s   transportation   terms,   that   absurdity   suggests   that   it   must   also   prohibit   having   more   than   one   car!     Such   a   suggestion   is   foolishness,   indeed. 
So,   Warren’s   interruptive   statement   was   clearly   incorrect   to   imply   that   Solomon’s   sin   of   hoarding   (multiplying)   wives   supposedly   meant   that   “Solomon   was   wrong”   for   marrying   more   than   one   wife.     Yes,   Solomon   “was   wrong”   for   violating   the   “civil   law.”     He   was,   indeed,   wrong   for   hoarding   and   allowing   idolatry.     But,   undoubtedly,   polygamy   was   neither   any   sin   nor   any   error   in   the   matter. 
It   would   also   appear   to   be   more   than   ironic   co-incidence   that   the   Biblical   Solomon   ended   up   being   Rick   Warren’s   only   anti-polygamy   reference   in   the   on-air   broadcast.     Upon   further   reading   of   the   very   same   story,   the   Bible   shows   God’s   response   to   those   specific   sins   of   Solomon’s   idolatry   and   violating   the   “civil   law.” 
After   Solomon’s   death,   the   kingdom   of   Israel   was   divided   in   two.     His   heir,   Rehoboam,   would   rule   from   Jerusalem   over   only   two   tribes,   while   another   man   would   rule   over   the   other   ten   tribes.     Rehoboam   was   then   identified   as   king   of   Judah   while   Jeroboam   the   son   of   Nebat   was   identified   as   king   of   Israel.     As   a   political   hedge,   in   order   to   prevent   people   from   the   northern   ten   tribes   from   travelling   to   Jerusalem   (i.e.,   into   Rehoboam’s   Judah)   for   their   religious   sacrifices   and   holy   days   required   by   the   “ceremonial   law,”   Jeroboam   instead   created   false   gods,   altars,   and   holy   days   for   the   people   of   Israel.     Hence,   Jeroboam   the   son   of   Nebat   politically   led   God’s   people   in   the   northern   tribes   into   the   sin   of   idolatry. 
Over   successive   kingdoms   thereafter,   the   Bible   identified   the   future   kings   as   either   good   or   as   one   who   committed   the   “sins   of   Jeroboam   the   son   of   Nebat,   who   made   Israel   to   sin.”     This   specific   comparison   was   frequently   used   throughout   the   forthcoming   chronology   of   Israel’s   kings.     For   example,   in   just   the   one   chapter   of   2   Kings   15   alone,   four   different   kings   were   called   out   by   it. 
Hence,   serious   Bible   students   recognize   the   phrase,   “gone   the   way   of   Jeroboam   the   son   of   Nebat,”   as   identifying   any   leader   of   God’s   people   who   politically   misleads   them   into   idolatry   with   false   gods. 
For   that   reason,   any   would-be   Christian   leader   who   calls   for   people   to   embrace   the   idolatry   of   demanding   that   the   false   god   of   big   socialist   government   re-define   and   control   God’s   doctrines   can   be   undeniably   identified   by   that   phrase   as   well.     Tyrannical   notions   of   government   gospel,   government   baptism,   government   Lord’s   table,   and   government   marriage   are   doctrines   that   God   never   once   needed   nor   ever   justified. 
Marriage   controllers   oppose   homosexuals   using   law   to   re-define   marriage   with   what   the   evangelical   Christian   viewpoint   sees   the   “moral   law”   calling   a   sin.     But   the   “solution”   is   not   to   use   the   sin   of   idolatry   to   re-define   marriage   with   a   Catholic   invented   doctrine   either.     Sin   versus   sin   is   still   sin,   as   far   as   actual   evangelical   Christianity   is   concerned. 
Indeed,   to   currently   allow   the   false   god   of   big   socialist   government   to   re-define   God’s   doctrine   of   marriage   one   way   is   to   falsely   authorize   a   new   majority   in   the   future   to   also   use   it   to   re-define   marriage   another   way.     God   forbid.     Ultimately,   in   the   Bible,   God   never   needed   the   false   god   of   big   socialist   government   for   anything,   never   mind   to   re-define   doctrine. 
So,   when   Pastor   Rick   Warren   (repeating   other   would-be   Christian   leaders)   encourages   Christians   to   embrace   big   government   marriage   control   amendments,   he   is   indeed   going   the   way   of   Jeroboam   the   son   of   Nebat,   misleading   Christians   into   idolatry   instead   of   turning   to   the   one   true   God   in   Whom   he   says   he   believes.     This   uncomfortable   fact   is   true,   even   if   he   sincerely   did   not   realize   it. 
In   an   edited   snip   of   the   on-air   broadcast,   Warren   shared   his   sincere   reasoning   for   supporting   marriage   control.     Near   the   beginning   of   the   broadcast,   Warren   explained,   “I   am   opposed   to   the   redefinition   of   marriage.     First   place,   to   me,   it   was   a   free   speech   issue.”     And   later,   he   re-iterated,   “I'm   in   favor   of   human   rights   for   everybody.     Everybody.     I'm   against   re-defining   marriage,   historically.   5,000   years,   because   then   it'll   be   re-defined.” 
As   this   essay   has   demonstrated,   not   only   is   that   statement   incorrect   about   the   historical   and   biblical   definition   of   marriage     as   somehow   excluding   polygamy,   but   it   is   also   incorrect   to   imply   that   marriage   has   not   already   been   re-defined   by   big   government.     Indeed,   anti-polygamists   have   actually   already   used   the   false   god   of   big   socialist   government   to   re-define   marriage   with   the   Catholic-invented   “one   man,   one   woman”   dogma   –   a   re-definition   which   Warren   appears   to   already   support. 
Pro-polygamists   can   be   encouraged   that   Pastor   Rick   Warren   cares   about   human   rights   –   especially   considering   that   polygamists   actually   have   very   few   rights   at   all,   even   being   denied   “legal   standing”   with   which   to   file   slander   and   libel   lawsuits   against   specific   intentionally   dishonest   media   outlets.     Indeed,   as   for   Warren’s   genuine   concern   about   “free   speech,”   past   anti-polygamists   have   even   gone   so   tyrannically   far   as   to   create   anti-American   laws   that   –   to   this   day   -   outright   deprive   polygamists   of   free   speech.     In   some   states,   if   any   married   man   so   much   as   just   refers   to   any   other   “girlfriend”   as   a   “wife,”   that   free   speech   act   itself   is   a   statutory   crime   –   by   law.     Hence,   consenting-adult   pro-polygamists   pursue   being   allowed   human   rights   and   true   freedom   from   big   government   tyranny,   including   having   free   speech.     As   Newsweek   has   directly   quoted   me   (Mark   Henkel),   “’Polygamy   rights’   is   the   next   civil   rights   battle.” 
Aside   from   issues   of   free   speech   and   human   rights,   though,   Pastor   Warren’s   statement   revealed   his   concern   about   the   “danger”   of   marriage   being   re-defined.     In   reality,   it   is   only   by   allowing   the   modern   idea   of   “government   marriage”   in   any   form   that   actually   originates   such   “danger.” 
The   historical   fact   is   that   big   governmental   anti-polygamy   is   the   real   slippery   slope   that   led   straight   to   the   modern   invention   of   the   legal   construct   of   the   otherwise   biological   impossibility   of   “same   sex   marriage.”     If   the   false   god   of   big   socialist   government   had   never   over-stepped   its   Constitutionally-constrained   authority   by   re-defining   marriage   in   the   first   place   with   anti-polygamy,   homosexuals   would   never   have   had   any   incentive,   justification,   or   even   legal   standing   with   which   to   pursue   the   modern   invented   re-definition   today. 
Ergo,   anti-polygamists   were   the   first   ones   to   re-define   marriage.     As   Rick   Warren   truly   wants   to   thwart   marriage   re-definition,   then   the   path   to   that   goal   is   obvious.     Return   to   the   U.S.   Constitution’s   principles   which   prohibit   big   government   from   making   any   marriage   re-definition   whatsoever   for   consenting-adults   –   whether   the   re-definition   is   for   “same   sex   marriage,”   anti-polygamy,   or   otherwise. 
The   only   valid   role   for   government   in   marriage   is   actually   at   the   municipal   level   as   a   repository   of   the   public   records   of   the   contractual   arrangements   that   consenting   adults   make.     Anything   more   than   that   is   Marxist-style   big   government   social   engineering   –   for   which   government   has   no   such   authority. 
Ultimately,   marriage   is   God-given   right   of   the   un-coerced   consenting-adult   individual.     Marriage   occurred   before   the   invention   of   government.     It   will   occur   if   government   ever   collapses.     No   one   in   the   Bible   was   ever   married   “by   government.”     Indeed,   the   actually-socialist   notion   of   “government   marriage”   is   a   very   new,   modern   phenomenon   over   the   whole   span   of   human   history.     And   indeed,   the   U.S.   Constitution’s   10th   and   9th   Amendments   together   prove   that   the   federal   government   has   no   authority   whatsoever   to   define,   license,   or   control   marriage   for   un-coerced   consenting-adults.      
For   Bible-believing   Christians,   of   course,   marriage   is   very   much   a   God-given   doctrine   indeed.     While   Pastor   Rick   Warren   might   not   yet   realize   that   Biblical   marriage   absolutely   does   include   consenting-adult   polygamy,   he   clearly   does   understand   the   importance   of   the   doctrine   to   Christians.     That   is   what   makes   Warren’s   and   other   Christians’   misguided   and   idolatrous   support   for   big   government   marriage   control   so   alarming.     Christianity-wise,   no   important   doctrines   should   ever   be   abominated   by   the   false   god   of   big   socialist   government. 
Would   Warren   allow   the   false   god   of   big   socialist   government   to   define,   license,   and   control   any   other   important   God-defined   doctrines?     How   about   a   big   government   gospel   defining,   licensing,   and   control   amendment?     How   about   a   baptism   control   amendment?     Would   he   support   a   Lord’s   table   control   amendment?     Even   if   such   control   amendments   were   deceptively   disguised   with   such   dishonest   titles   as   so-called   “protection   amendments,”   would   such   intended-deception   conceal   the   fact   that   they   are   really   about   forcefully   giving   up   power   to   the   false   god   of   big   socialist   government   to   control   individuals   and   to   control   God’s   doctrines?       Most   likely,   he   would   say,   “No.” 
Realizing   this   context,   marriage   control   truly   betrays   Pastor   Warren’s   genuine   values   and   Christian   faith.     Government   really   has   no   Constitutional   authority   to   be   re-defining,   licensing,   and   controlling   Christian   doctrines   –   whether   it’s   the   gospel,   baptism,   the   Lord’s   table,   or   marriage.     Consenting-adult   marriage   is   a   God-given   right   of   the   Individual,   well   beyond   the   authority   of   government   to   control. 
So   how   can   the   real   definition   of   marriage   be   protected   without   committing   the   idolatry   of   big   government   marriage   control?    
No   one   has   a   right   to   re-define   marriage   –   including   homosexuals.       Even   so,   however,   homosexuals   do   have   a   right   to   their   own   imaginations,   just   as   much   as   anti-polygamists   do.     Indeed,   everyone   has   an   individual   right   to   an   imagination,   even   if   others   neither   support   nor   agree   with   that   imagination.      
Yet,   at   the   same   time,   no   one   has   the   right   to   use   the   false   god   of   big   socialist   government   to   force   their   own   imaginations   upon   others,   either.     Those   who   imagine   what   conservatives   view   as   the   biological   impossibility   of   “same   sex   marriage”   do   not   have   the   right   to   use   big   government   to   re-define   marriage   according   to   their   imaginations.     But   neither   do   anti-polygamists   have   any   right   to   use   it   to   force   their   unbiblical,   Catholic-invented   imaginations   of   “one   man,   one   woman”   forced-exclusivity   dogma,   ether. 
When   the   beast   of   big   government   is   de-fanged   from   the   tyranny   of   enforcing   any   re-definition   of   marriage   for   consenting-adults,   then   it   does   not   matter   whether   one   side   disagrees   with   the   imaginations   or   beliefs   of   another.     It   then   would   not   matter   to   homosexuals   if   Christians   do   not   support   what   homosexuals   imagine.     And   it   also   would   not   matter   to   evangelicals   if   homosexuals   do   not   support   what   Christians   believe   either. 
Thereby,   everyone   is   free,   whether   they   imagine   or   choose   “one   man,   one   woman,”   “same   sex   marriage,”   or   consenting-adult   polygamy.     The   jackboot   and   shackles   of   the   false   god   of   big   socialist   government’s   tyranny   is   thus   removed   from   all   individuals   everywhere.   The   churches   remain   free   to   preach   according   to   the   Bible   and   their   own   consciences.     And   marriage   can   never   be   re-defined   by   anyone   ever   again. 
This   argument   has   long   been   known   as   what   I’ve   labeled,   “the   Polygamy   Rights   WIN-WIN   solution”   to   end   the   marriage   debate.     With   this   solution,   everyone   politically   wins   and   is   able   to   “save   face.”     Conservatives   get   their   limited   government   values   back.     Liberals   get   their   “equality   for   all”   beliefs.     And   all   Americans   will   be   thankful   that   the   tiresome   marriage   debate   had   finally   come   to   an   end. 
Embracing   this   limited   government,   anti-idolatrous   solution   is   the   most   direct   and   honest   means   by   which   Pastor   Rick   Warren   (and   any   other   leading   Christian-based   marriage   controller)   may   easily   “depart   from   the   sins   of   Jeroboam   the   son   of   Nebat.”     Doing   so   would   indeed   work   to   truly   protect   marriage   from   being   re-defined,   while   equally   helping   him   steer   clear   from   the   sin   of   leading   God’s   people   into   idolatry. 
For   Christians,   the   Bible   even   provides   further   proof   for   being   motivated   to   reject   marriage   control   and   to   accept   this   WIN-WIN   solution.     Indeed,   the   Bible   itself   speaks   directly   about   marriage   control   as   “doctrines   of   devils!”     In   1   Timothy   4:1-3a,   the   Scripture   can   even   be   seen   as   “the   Holy   Spirit   foretelling”   of   this   modern   day   situation,   wherein   even   misguided   Christian   believers   embrace   utter   hypocrisy   and   lies   in   order   to   idolatrously   forbid   marriage. 
As   it   is   written, 
“Now   the   Spirit   speaketh   expressly, 
that   in   the   latter   times 
some   shall   depart   from   the   faith, 
giving   heed   to   seducing   spirits, 
and   doctrines   of   devils; 
speaking   lies   in   hypocrisy; 
having   their   conscience   seared   with   a   hot   iron; 
forbidding   to   marry…” 
The   words   of   that   New   Testament   “prophecy”   jump   off   the   page   for   any   Bible-student   looking   for   any   Biblical   indication   about   the   current   political   marriage   debate. 
In   turning   to   the   false   god   of   big   socialist   government   for   marriage   control,   Rick   Warren   has   unwittingly   embraced   the   undeniable   lies   and   hypocrisy   of   forbidding   the   marriages   of   all   the   Biblical   polygamists.     He   would   even   forbid   God   who   described   Himself   as   polygamously   married   in   Jeremiah   3   and   Ezekiel   23.     For   these   holy   examples   in   the   Bible,   today’s   marriage   control   is   a   “doctrine   of   devils,”   an   obvious   lie,   hypocritically   “forbidding   to   marry”   indeed. 
Most   likely,   the   genuinely   kindhearted   Pastor   Rick   Warren,   who   sincerely   hopes   to   stand   positively   in   his   accountability   before   God,   will   want   to   reject   such   “Spirit-foretold”   idolatry   indeed,   that   he   would   indeed   stop   “forbidding   to   marry”   and   just   “depart   from   the   sins   of   Jeroboam   the   son   of   Nebat,   who   made   Israel   to   sin.”     In   sharing   the   facts   of   the   matter   herein   for   his   benefit,   this   essay   may   possibly   aid   the   pastor   (and   other   misguided   marriage   controllers)   toward   that   end. 
The   very   same   passage   there   in   1   Timothy   4   later   states   in   verse   6,     “If   thou   put   the   brethren   in   remembrance   of   these   things,   thou   shalt   be   a   good   minister   of   Jesus   Christ,   nourished   up   in   the   words   of   faith   and   of   good   doctrine,   whereunto   thou   hast   attained.”     Evangelical   Christian   polygamists   (specifically),   in   continuing   the   Reformation,   would   all   hope   that   this   essay   could   indeed   be   a   persuasive   blessing   for   Pastor   Rick   Warren   and   for   all   marriage   controllers   –   as   that   verse’s   affirmation   defines   this   essay’s   sincere   intent. 
For   Rick   Warren   and   all   evangelical   marriage   controllers,   the   Bible   provides   unambiguous   incentive   to   rapidly   turn   away   from   the   idolatry   of   “forbidding   to   marry.” 
16.     FREEDOM   FOR   ALL 
Once   government   is   finally   disallowed   from   “forbidding   to   marry”   and   re-defining   marriage,   then   government   will   be   perpetually   disallowed   from   oppressing   anyone   regarding   marriage   ever   again.     For   Christian   churches,   for   homosexuals,   for   consenting-adult   polygamists,   for   everyone,   therein   is   real   freedom   and   justice   for   all   indeed. 
Every   American   from   any   religious   belief   or   imagination   about   marriage   will   rejoice:   the   exhausting   big   government   marriage   “fight”   will   have   finally   concluded!     Therewith,   former   evangelical   marriage   controllers   will   have   uncompromisingly   blessed   everyone   with   a   genuinely   Christian   testimony. 
Such   a   blessing   for   all   will   live   up   to   the   prayer   from   Rick   Warren,   himself,   who   truly   said   it   best   at   President   Barack   Obama’s   Inauguration,   wherein   the   pastor   declared   the   name   of   the   famous   polygamist   Israel   worldwide. 
Just   before   bringing   the   opening   prayer   to   a   close   by   reciting   the   Biblically-given   Lord’s   Prayer,   Pastor   Rick   Warren   prayed   to   God,   “Help   us   to   remember   that   we   are   Americans   united   not   by   race   or   religion   or   blood,   but   to   our   commitment   to   freedom   and   justice   for   all. 
“When   we   focus   on   ourselves,   when   we   fight   each   other,   when   we   forget   You   -   forgive   us.   When   we   presume   that   our   greatness   and   our   prosperity   is   ours   alone   -   forgive   us.     When   we   fail   to   treat   our   fellow   human   beings   and   all   the   earth   with   the   respect   that   they   deserve   -   forgive   us.   And   as   we   face   these   difficult   days   ahead   may   we   have   a   new   birth   of   clarity   in   our   aims,   responsibility   in   our   actions,   humility   in   our   approaches,   and   civility   in   our   attitudes   -   even   when   we   differ. 
“Help   us   to   share,   to   serve,   and   to   seek   the   common   good   of   all.     May   all   people   of   good   will   today   join   together   to   work   for   a   more   just,   a   more   healthy   and   a   more   prosperous   nation   and   a   peaceful   planet.   And   may   we   never   forget   that   one   day   all   nations   and   all   people   will   stand   accountable   before   You.” 


Bibliographic URLs:

2. PASTOR RICK WARREN,8599,1830147,00.html 
* Judaism 
* Islam 
* Hinduism 
* Buddhism 

[Reviewed for publication - Review Board.]

Click to order DVD

Latest Headlines

From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles

2017 Aug 19
Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 17th Annual 'Polygamy Day'
On August 19, 2017, UCAPs (unrelated consenting adult polygamy supporters) are noting and celebrating "Polygamy Day 17" – the seventeenth year of annual Polygamy Day ® celebrations.  

2017 Aug 07
Finding Polygamists 'Guilty of Polygamy' Pushes Canada Backwards
After anti-polygamy law deemed "constitutional" to criminalize in Canada, one lone judge finds two leaders of Bountiful group "guilty of polygamy," even as case involved only adult women and no other real crimes.

2017 Jun 25
Pro-Polygamists Glad that Fugitive Lyle Jeffs was Caught
"It's like déjà vu all over again." Mark Henkel, National Polygamy Advocate and founder of the organization, responds to the news and is available to media for comment.

2017 Feb 01
Supreme Court Declined to Hear 'Sister Wives' Polygamy case
SCOTUS denied even hearing the Brown v. Buhman petition, letting the appeals court's reversal stand, not even hearing any of the pro-polygamy merits, and bringing the whole issue back to the status quo.

Read More
From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles


Media or Pro-Polygamists

© Copyright 2003 - 2018       ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
"" is an exclusive legal Trademark of ™.