The following links are provided as an alternative to spending hours using search engines and tearing your hair out. The pages the links lead to are not provided by this site, and while some are very good, we cannot vouch for the validity or utility of their content. However, they should all be related to polygamy in some way.
As always, be like the Bereans in the book of Acts – search the scriptures to see if these things are true.
Norman Anderson on Marriage and Sexuality – This one has moved and been updated. Norman Anderson covers polygamy as part of his approach to sexuality – to the extent of publishing the same work by John Milton as polygamypage.info – we would not endorse all his conclusions, but it is worth a look if you are ready to take a look at issues from a fairly heavy theological perspective (no dumbing down here).
Bfree – Well, OK – not exactly “new” as such – in fact a christian polygamy site at least as old as this one – but relisted, after I removed them from the links one month when much of the site was down, and promptly forgot to reinstitute the link when it was fixed.
What IS the Teaching Of The Bible On Polygamy?, Wm. Russow, An essay discussing the Bible’s stance on Polygamy. http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/R/RussowPolygamy/RussowPolygamy.htm
Polygamy and the Patriarchs, Kessel, William B., Was polygamy always a sin? If polygamy was always a sin, then why did God remain silent when the patriarchs engaged in plural marriages? Is it possible that polygamy once was acceptable in God’s sight but is no longer? It is these and similar issues which are addressed in this paper, http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/K/KesselPolygamy/KesselPolygamy.htm
“The Husband of One Wife”, Clergy Marital Status or Paradigm of the Public Ministry?, http://users.aol.com/SemperRef/husband.html
You may see some articles from polygamypage.info on these sites. They are there without my permission.
http://indegayforum.org/articles/corvino59.html (points up some of the opposition to using “gay rights” to argue for “poly rights”)
http://indegayforum.org/articles/boaz2.html (an interesting suggestion that marriage should be privatised)
Religious Freedom, Polygamy and the Law – At the copy at polygamy.com
Links related to Christianity
TRUTH BEARER Providing Tracts & More on HOW to teach Scripturality of Christian Polygamy
Mark Henkell has his own view of the Christian Polygamy movement, which not everyone within that movement shares. (for you foreigners, that last comment was classic British understatement, and technically could be said of any of the websites on this page).
Other Polygamy Links
I’ve checked that these links work. Hence, if a link doesn’t work, then it’s been moved or removed – please tell me so I can keep the place tidy. Feel free to send me details of more. These links are here because they relate to the subject of polygamy, sometimes in an obscure way, and I was trying to build a comprehensive list. I’ve now given up on that. The presence of a link does not mean that the content of the site should be approved by any Christian.
- Polygamy for Mormons
- ServeYahweh.org – Not listed as Christian, owing to their charge that the Apostle Paul was a heretic.
- New Covenant Religious site – the “New Covenant Church of God” practices a very limited version of polygamy, and represents itself as Christian, but suggests a version of eternal marriage and has its own set of books it treats as Scripture, rather than the historic Christian faith as represented in the Bible alone. It is therefore not a purely Biblical faith. It views polygamypage.info as “hostile” as, for these reasons, we do not accept their claim to be a Christian site. There is, however, plenty of information on the site.
The link now points directly to the page where the NCCG tell you what a bad job I’ve done in the paragraph above, which I found some 15 months after they posted it. I should probably explain a few things, as follows:-
1) I called it a religious site and put “church” in quotes because I don’t want anyone to be confused into thinking that the site’s religious claims would attract my support.
2) I used “limited version of polygamy” to represent the group’s restriction of the practice of polygamy to a limited group within their organisation. This should be contrasted with the freedom to marry found in the Bible. Historically, there has often been someone who has been prepared to say “There’s nothing wrong with polygamy, but you have to have God’s special permission if you want to practice it, and I can tell you whether you have God’s permission or not”. The Bible knows no such restriction.
3) My concerns were raised by the organisation’s special attachment to a book called “the Olive Branch” – a supposed revelation from God dating all the way back to 1996, (co-incidentally as old as this website you are now reading). I tend to take a dim view of supposed new revelations from God, accepting instead that God told us all we need to know in the 66 books that constitute the Bible. I am therefore worried that the organisation could be non-christian and peddles false doctrine. They won’t like that, but I tend to prefer to call a long-handled agricultural instrument “a spade”.
4) They imply that I insist on the agreement with Catholic creeds in order for a person to qualify as Christian. This is an error – I would find it difficult to care less about which body considered itself important enough to issue any particular creed. I’m a “no creed but the bible” kind of guy. Should anyone reject this on the basis that they don’t think the teaching of the Bible is clear enough, they should take it up with God, rather than me.
5) They (if indeed the organisation is any more than one person) shouldn’t really read all that much into what was formally a one-paragraph entry – I merely thought that an organisation with such an impressive-sounding name, but that most readers would be unfamiliar with, could do with thumb-nail description.