Feminism, Witchcraft and Monogamy

Several evenings ago, I recommended the sixth chapter of James Wesley Stivers’ Eros Made Sacred while commenting on another blog. That chapter, originally written by Stivers as a stand alone essay to explore the conceptual affinity between the three doctrines, is an amazing wealth of thought and philosophy. I found it online yesterday and have copied and pasted it from another website and strongly recommend that if this material piques your interest, you order this short and powerful book and read it. There is a link on our Resources page. We gain nothing from the links on that page.

Chapter 6. Feminism, Witchcraft and Monogamy

113 Qualifier: It is not the view of 113Restoration that monogamy itself is the source of feminism and witchcraft, which is the impression which may erroneously be conveyed by this chapter, but state- and culture-enforced monogamy-ONLY laws. It is therefore the anti-polygyny laws that are feminism’s and witchcraft’s catalysts. The universal practice of polygyny by all men and women everywhere would be undesirable and impractical in this age.


Feminism, monogamy, and witchcraft form an unholy trinity working the destruction of Christian civilization. This is an astonishing assertion and one which will not sit well with most people. Most people will view witchcraft as a plausible rival of the Christian faith. Some will view militant feminism with distrust. But to associate monogamy with the two seems preposterous. To prove the linkage, let us begin with some basic definitions of these terms.

Feminism: originated by the French playwright Alexander Dumas in his essay on the rights of women, L’Homme-Femme (1872), has often been used in reference to movements to secure equality for women; the term in current usage for such movements is ‘women’s liberation’.”

Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, Vol. 25, p.209

Witchcraft: “The practices of witches; sorcery; power more than natural; enchantment”.

New Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary

Monogamy: “The practice or principle of marrying only once”.

Ibid.

Romantic feminism, which lies at the foundation of the women’s liberation movement, believes in the ethical and spiritual superiority of women over men. An example of this attitude was Margaret Sanger, founder of the birth control movement (see Peter Gardella’s Innocent Ecstasy, Oxford University Press, New York, 1985). The notion of feminine superiority was necessary to justify women’s suffrage and the notion of “liberation” from the tyranny of men.

The average feminist believes in the functional equality of the sexes. She believes the average woman can do whatever the average man can do, and sometimes better. Perhaps the woman must rely more upon the aid of technology (such as contraceptives) or her intuitive instincts – but in the end, men and women are the same.

Therefore, “liberation” means a release from traditional rôles of wife, mother, and mistress. Not only do these women want to do what men do in politics, business, and education; they also want to be soldiers, priests, and judges. They want traditional families obliterated and the rearing of children given to the state (see literature published by the National Organization for Women). They want marriage to be equally divided like a business partnership. In the words of one spokesman:

For the sake of those who wish to live in equal partnership, we have to abolish and reform the institution of legal marriage.

Gloria Steinem

Feminists believe they are more developed emotionally than men, and thus are better equipped to reduce conflict. The male’s territorial ambitions, pride and sexual aggressions lead to war: the ultimate evil. The woman is said to be kinder, gentler, and consequently, better motivated to compromise, reform society, and mete-out equitable justice. Enlightened womanhood is viewed as the redemptive force in the world. She must be liberated from the home and be allowed to tame the public sphere.

Feminists also believe they are more sensitive spiritually and less intellectually wooden than men. They are more prone to mystic experiences and contact with the supernatural. Since traditional Christianity lacks this feminine touch, feminists yearn for the return of a mythical matriarchal age antedating Christianity. They reject the patriarchal core of the Bible and its masculine deity. The drift is strong toward a neutered Scripture.

Over the last several years, we see this theme receiving serious attention. Books like When God Was A Woman by Merlin Stone are on the cutting-edge of feminism’s war with Christianity. As a book review described it:

Here, archaeologically documented, is the fascinating story of the religion of the “Goddess.” Known by many names – Astarte, Isis, Ishtar, among others – she and matriarchy reigned supreme in the Near and Middle East.

In addition to being worshipped for fertility, the Goddess was revered as the wise creator and the one source of universal order. Under her, women’s roles differed markedly from those in patriarchal Judeo-Christian cultures. Women bought and sold property, traded in the market-place and the inheritance of title and property was passed from mother to daughter.

How and when did the change in our perception of God (and woman) occur? By documenting the wholesale rewriting of myth and religious dogmas, the author reveals a very ancient conspiracy: the patriarchal re-imaging of the Goddess into a wanton, depraved figure. The author demonstrates that this is the portrait that laid the foundation for one of culture’s greatest shams – the legend of Adam and fallen Eve.

Barnes & Noble bookstore catalogue

The Humanist Magazine has propagandized along similar lines, and boasts that “Feminism is humanism on its most advanced level.”

Feminist ideology has largely triumphed in American society. What was lost in the failed “Equal Rights Amendment” has been gained using the Fabian process: piecemeal victories in the courts by using the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Turning now to witchcraft, it is not difficult to show the ideological affinity between it and feminism. Witchcraft is not Satanism and the worship of the Christian devil. Witchcraft (or Wicca) is the old paganism of goddess worship – a natural religion centered around the mystery, sexuality, and psychic abilities of the female. Modern witchcraft, blended with science, is much more sophisticated than ancient or medieval witchcraft. It talks of astral planes, holistic healing, and lesbian sex instead of necromancy, magic potions, and orgiastic sabbats. The New Age Movement, with its channeling, herbal medicine, and tantric sex is the vanguard of this synthesis between feminism and witchcraft.

The practice of abortion and belief in reincarnation are two examples demonstrating the pervasiveness of witchcraft in our society. Witches were the original abortionists, ending pregnancies for distraught women through drugs and magic spells. Reincarnation is at the core of Wicca’s system of justice: undischarged Karma, the burden of spiritual debit and credit carried over from incarnation to incarnation until it is finally resolved (see What Witches Do by Stewart Farrar, Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, New York, 1971). Reincarnation is prominent in the New Age Movement (witness Shirley McClain) and legal abortions are in the millions. Abortion, as a form of birth control, is one of the pillars of feminism. Reincarnation witnesses to the genderlessness of mankind’s soulish essence, which is his real essence (one may alternate between male and female in successive incarnations according to Wiccan dogma).

The doctrine of reincarnation, as it is taught by such pagan religions, is an affront to the Christian doctrine of Atonement. Christianity teaches the all-sufficiency of Christ’s sacrificial death.

Abortion, of course, is a violation of Christian morality. Not only is abortion condemned in the Scriptures, but also in the earliest writings of the Church (Didache, Barnabas, Clement, Ignatius, etc.)

Temple prostitution was an integral aspect of ancient goddess worship. It was also central to the matriarchal order. The temples held the monopoly on sex, and men paid handsomely to get it. Revenues generated from this commerce bank-rolled matriarchal supremacy.

Additionally, temple prostitution served as a form of public welfare. Girls from poor families and orphans given or sold to the temple got an equal shake. (Primitive, pagan societies which were poor and lacked this kind of institutional structure, killed their girls at birth). Boys could become sodomites, or could be sacrificed to Moloch (lit. “king”). They fought in gladiator games (and died) or were killed in war.

This is the old Baal religion denounced in the Bible. Ashtoreth, with Baal (her male consort), were the generic names for each local pantheon of deities. Baalism occurred in the advanced pagan cultures – Egypt, Canaan, Babylon, Greece, Rome, etc.

The monogamy of ancient times was created in order to insure a static and equalitarian society. The established political order had a vested interest in preventing the emergence of power blocks. And the control of population growth was integral to the stability of their civilizations (witness the near panic of the Egyptians at the explosion of Hebrew fertility in Exodus 1. In Egypt and Israel we have a classic confrontation of monogamous and polygamous cultures.)

Monogamy could only be sustained by public prostitution. Men who could not afford private courtesans, availed themselves of the temple prostitutes.

There, they could expend their vital energies, which monogamy did not accommodate. These “priestesses” would frequently conceive and bear children, which were used in human sacrifice, if they were male. Females were sometimes saved for future prostitution. Human sacrifice was added as a means to relieve the burdens of procreation for the temple. And in hard times, they were eaten in a cannibalistic (Cahna-baal) eucharist.

Wherever there has been prostitution, witchcraft has flourished – if for no other reason than for the fact that prostitutes have turned to witchcraft to prevent or terminate pregnancies. We find the same phenomenon in monogamous cultures. Pregnancies are dreaded. Monogamous wives fear of losing their husbands if they do not maintain their youthful beauty and vigor, which pregnancies rarely exempt as a price. Children also take a toll on the affluence of a family, the time a woman can spend with her husband, and the general success with housework. Hence, contraception, aberrant sex, and abortion go hand-in-hand with monogamy. Polygamy greatly lessens these stresses and consequences.

Some social observers may vainly imagine that for some men to be polygamous (polygynous), some women (prostitutes) must be polyandrous (George Gilder, Men and Marriage, Pelican Publishing, 1987). Polygamy is seen as the disease instead of the cure. It is blamed for homosexuality and prostitution.

Who is to say which came first – the chicken or the egg? Whether men abandoned social responsibility and became sodomites and philanderers and thus created a surplus of marriageable women? Or whether polygamy created a shortage of women and forced the surplus of men into the arms of the harlot and sodomite? Which do you see more of these days? More men who want marriage or more women? More polygamists or more prostitutes (professional and amateur)?

I doubt whether that question is statistically answerable. But it can be answered Biblically. The Bible gives the reason for homosexuality in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, chapter 1:

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use [of their sexual orifice – WS] into that which is against nature [procreation]:  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

The Greek word for “nature” is “budding forth” and refers to fertility. The Word of God here teaches the rise of homosexuality as God’s judgment for atheism. The women, monogamous women, lose faith in God’s sovereignty over their conception and seek to control it or restrain it themselves. Contraception neuters the woman. A male having sex with an androgynous female finds it a small step, psychologically, to having sex with an effeminate male. Feminism produces homosexuality.

Monogamy decouples sex from propagation of the human species and reduces it to the feminine motive for intimacy. I am not saying that intimacy is bad, but that intimacy is the way women experience sex. Men experience it differently: as a tool of dominion. God made man to procreate, and all things being equal, he will be polygamous. He cannot experience sex as intimacy. His relational arrow points upward to God, and God’s calling upon his sexuality – not to the woman. No woman in herself can fulfill her husband. She is only a part, although an indispensable part, of her husband’s life. If she does not allow him to procreate, to build a household and an estate, sex with her loses its sanctity. Reduced to a mere exercise in sensual gratification, her idolatrous demand for intimacy turns him into a hedonistic monster or a tortured drone.

Monogamy inevitably cultivates the hedonistic motive in men – the motive which sustains prostitution. For if men were interested in women primarily as the mothers of their children, then there would be no demand for prostitutes. Men go to prostitutes for fun sex, not fruitful sex.

We cannot blame polygamy for creating a shortage of women available for marriage. Rather, a shortage of men interested in marriage requires the monogamous woman to compete with the prostitute for the affections of the male. Monogamy creates a demand and a supply for a kind of sex which avoids the messy consequences of procreation. Sex without procreation inevitably leads to sex without relationship, the kind offered by the prostitute and homosexual. For the man who now seeks the prostitute for sex without the burden of children, may next seek the sodomite for sex without the burden of women. The inconvenience of the woman’s menstrual cycle, her fickle emotions, and her dependency on the male are all avoided by the homosexual. It should not surprise us that ancient philosophers were often bisexual, and considered homosexuality to be the more rational and “purer” form of sex.

Polygamy reduces the supply of women available for prostitution, whether professional or amateur. A married woman, if she does compete with other women, competes as mother, not as prostitute.

The notion that the civilizing of the male occurs by submitting his sexuality to the maternal sexual patterns of the female is skewed. For there is always a class of men whose virility demand large families. Most women are not prepared emotionally or physically to bear enough children to span the years of their husband’s fertility – about forty good years. To require monogamy of such men only weakens them. The Creation Mandate tells him to “be fruitful and multiply”. It is written in his very being. Restraining a man’s virility is perverse. He is a man, not an angel. If he cannot lawfully have polygamy, then he will seek the whore.

Therefore, we are back to the assertion that monogamy and prostitution go hand-in-hand. There has never been a monogamous society in the history of mankind which has not been forced to wink at unchastity. In a polygamous society, there is no excuse for it, and can be rightly punished severely. Monogamous societies must be lenient toward the harlot. In so doing, it creates a cultural force in favor of witchcraft.

This is not all; for there are other polluted streams which flow from the fount of monogamy.

Feminism demands equality, and where does it learn the notion of equality, but from monogamy? In monogamy there is an equalitarian demand for a numerical equality of the sexes. One woman equals one man in marriage. Social morés may separate the notions of economical (or functional) equality from equality in being (ontological or essence) for a while. That is, men and women may be considered the same in the sense of being human, but with different roles. The Bellum tradition has succeeded at this separation to a fault. However heroically defended, these secondary defenses are challenged and broken. Society adopts a companionate view of marriage. Women begin to view their husbands as chums and not as lords. And then, the distinction of roles becomes blurred. The confusion of roles never occurs in a polygamous household; for the numerical inequality of the sexes makes the man special and the natural source for leadership and arbitration. Thus, his priestly and governmental headship is enhanced.

This aspect of the man’s headship in the home and society is a key element in maintaining a Christian civilization. For a man to exercise dominion at any given place, he must first be present. A woman without a man as her head – either father or husband – is in a state of anarchy. It is as evil for a woman to lack that headship as it is for a man to lack the headship of Christ, or for Christ to lack the headship of God (1 Corinthians 11:3).

The Scriptures do not teach in vain that “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft” (1 Samuel 15:23). The revolt against male authority (or its evasion) is the central pillar of feminism and witchcraft. Monogamy wars against that authority by creating a growing class of women who are unattached to families. They are women who lack either a father or husband in charge of their domestic lives. They become independent and begin to work, like the steady force of gravity, into the spheres once controlled by men.

Historically, such women have been the harlots. Prostitutes have opportunities unique to their profession which bring power. Not only in terms of wealth, but more importantly in terms of intrigue, blackmail, and privileged information, prostitution gives them leverage which the confession box is only a poor competitor. Men are often compromised by their philandering, especially in a monogamous culture. They will pay well or provide special favors to protect their vices.

We can see why Biblical law did not allow widows to remain unmarried. The temptation to harlotry was a grave danger.

We find an example of this degrading process (of monogamy to feminism to witchcraft) in the decline of ancient Israel’s southern kingdom: Judah. By the time of King Hezekiah, the geographical expansion had long since passed. Monogamy was nearly universal among the Jews. The concentration of power into the royal dynasty had become nearly complete – culturally, economically, and politically. The royal princes had practiced polygamy, following the pattern of Solomon’s pompous display in violation of Deuteronomy 17:17. This denied polygamy to the common man who was forced into monogamy because he was priced out of the market. Coupled with zero population growth, Israelite society lacked a growing pool of marriageable women available for polygamy. Historians have noted that static civilizations are always decadent ones. And we know Judah had become decadent because aberrant sexual practices were becoming a problem: adultery, sex with menstruating women, prostitution, and various sins of uncleanness. These are forms of cheap and easy sex.

On the other end of the scale, it was becoming increasingly difficult to marry-off the royal daughters as fewer men had the capital to pay the dowries. Thus, there emerged the phenomenon of what Isaiah called “the daughters of Zion” – something similar to what college-educated women careerists are experiencing today. Most women want to marry someone higher on the social scale. Who do you marry when you are on top looking down?

Following Hezekiah’s benevolent reign, Judah became a militantly feminist society (Isaiah 3:12, 16-17). And his successor, Manasseh, led the nation in an orgy of idolatry and witchcraft (2 Kings 21:1-18; 2 Chronicles 33:1-20). We can mark Judah’s decline by the social conditions which made polygamy impossible.

An example from secular history would be that of ancient Greece. I quote at length from W.E.Lecky’s The History of European Morals, from Augustine to Charlemagne, (1869):

“It is one of the most remarkable, and, to some writers, one of the most perplexing facts in the moral history of Greece, that, in the former and ruder period, women had undoubtedly the highest place, and their type exhibited the highest perfection [the polygamous period: J.S.]. Moral ideas, in a thousand forms, have been sublimated, enlarged, and changed by advancing civilisation; but it may be fearlessly asserted, that the types of female excellence which are contained in the Greek poems, while they are among the earliest, are also among the most perfect, in the literature of mankind.

“In the historical [or monogamous] age of Greece, the legal position of women had, in some measure, slightly improved; but their moral condition had undergone a marked deterioration. The foremost and most dazzling type of Ionic womanhood was the courtesan; and among the males, at least, the empire of passion was almost unrestricted.

“The peculiarity of Greek sensuality is that it grew up, for the most part, uncensored, and, indeed, even encouraged, under the eyes of some of the most illustrious of moralists [for example: Socrates, a homosexual and Plato his successor].

“In the Greek civilization, legislators and moralists recognised two distinct orders of womanhood, – the wife, whose first duty was fidelity to her husband, and the hetaera, the mistress, who subsisted by her fugitive attachments. The wives lived in almost absolute seclusion. They were usually married when very young. The more wealthy seldom went abroad, and never, except when accompanied by a female slave; never attended the public spectacles; received no male visitors, except in the presence of their husbands; and had not even a seat at their own tables when male guests were there.

“The voluptuous worship of Aphrodite gave a kind of religious sanction to their profession [of the hetaera or courtesan]. Courtesans were the priestesses in their temples. The courtesan was the queen of beauty. She was the model of the statues of Aphrodite, that commanded the admiration of Greece. . . The courtesan was the one free woman of Athens; and she often availed herself of her freedom to acquire a degree of knowledge which enabled her to add to her other charms an intense intellectual fascination.

This candid account we have from a vigorous defender of monogamy! Polygamy degraded into monogamy, and monogamy degraded into promiscuity.

Our own nation’s experience has been similar. Prior to the Civil War, excessive numbers of women were not a problem. The rigors of the frontier meant they died young and their widowers remarried. Following the Civil War, however, the wilderness became less a reality in the lives of most Americans. The country was settled as far west as Kansas. All that remained was the Great Plains, and that has never factored much in population anyway.

Over 600,000 men died in the fighting of the Civil War. This represented a loss of the the most marriageable men in a nation of 26 million whites. Immediately, the nation faced a severe man shortage. Had this been a polygamous society, it would not have been a problem. But American evangelicals insisted upon monogamy and a class of women was created which had no male headship. During the later part of the 19th century, we find feminism taking wings. But in our stoic tradition, the vanguard was not the prostitute. It was the school teacher. Public education mushroomed during the period as young spinsters struggled to make a respectable living. Their higher education plus independent livelihood made them excellent spokesmen for feminism, socialism, and other radical ideologies which enveloped the nation just prior to the 20th Century.

The majority of women, however, worked low-paying jobs in the factories. They became the oppressed for whom the feminists would speak, and would later become a voting block for women’s liberation. In the mean time, their cheap labor created the corporate empires which in the 20th Century have nearly wiped-out the family farmer and small-town businessman.

Enforced monogamy is not a Biblical teaching, but a doctrine at the heart of Wiccan religion. Witchcraft teaches the doctrine of equal polarities. The universe consists in, and operates through, inseparable opposites. Indeed, this is the governing principle of all pagan religions. From the Baal and Ashtoreth religions of the ancient Middle East, to the Greek and Roman pantheons of gods and goddesses – the universe is comprised of an ultimate dualism working its way down to a multitude of particular dualisms. The Chinese have known it as Yin and Yang. Among the Zoroastrians, it was light and darkness. The ancient philosophers talked of universals and particulars or cosmos and chaos.

Modern man thinks of form and energy. And Hegel saw it as thesis versus antithesis resulting in a synthesis, which then becomes a new thesis. Medieval Christianity had its God and Satan. The list goes on and on, but the theme is the same.

Witchcraft views women’s liberation as merely a restoration of the feminine principle and a balancing-out of the cosmos. It does not believe in male or female dominance, but total equality. In the rites of Wicca, it is important that the coven be led by a priestess and her male consort as the goddess and god. Every act must be counter-weighed by members of the opposite sex. By this process is the cosmic order maintained in the rituals.

Biblical Christianity is the only religion which breaks away from this sexual and dualistic view of paganism. With its doctrine of the Trinity, or three-ism, the possibility of dualism as a faith and social philosophy is shattered. Likewise, we can see why monogamy is so important to pagan man and why polygamy is inimical to it. Monogamy maintains the cosmic dualism in the pagan home and its family shrine. Monogamy, with one man and one woman (and one boy and one girl for static perpetuation of godhood) represents the image of the dualistic godhead.

The polygamous household, on the other hand, reflects a different godhead: the Holy Trinity of Father (ruler), Son (heir/successor) and Holy Spirit (mother/helper). For this reason, pagan man has always been hostile to polygamy, as he has population growth. His view of the universe is dualistic and fluid, and of course, friendly to promiscuity. It needs the god-state to bring order.

Modern Christianity betrays its pagan infection with its enforced monogamy and its bondage to goddess worship (i.e. the Virgin Mary, a transvestite Christ, and the Church as a Bride). Mankind inevitably and irresistibly mirrors its view of God and the cosmos. Who is really the Christian’s God?

The Christian’s God will produce a family-based society of diversity, liberty, and respect for private property. It will be patriarchal with an emphasis on traditional roles for men and women. Ethics are not situational, but based on an authoritative source.

The Holy Spirit is the Father’s helper. It is feminine in the ancient Hebrew language and is divisible into the Seven Spirits of Revelation, which divide in order to multiply the Son. Thus, polygamy is at the core of an authentic, Trinitarian Christianity (see The Mother Heart of God)

This is not what we are seeing from modern Christianity. We see “experience” exalted over the Bible in ethical decisions. Traditional roles are often switched. And as a society based upon private contracts, we see an increasing presence of the state to reduce the litigious anarchy in the courts.

Monogamy, feminism, and witchcraft are ideologically homogenous. For that reason, they must be recognized for what they really are: allies in a war against Biblical Christianity. Polygamy is the weapon which strikes at the Achilles heel of Satan’s kingdom. May Christians have the grace to see their Opportunity.

Copyright ©1991 J.W.Stivers, Library of Congress #TX-3-189-734
Stivers Publications, P.O. Box 8701, Moscow, Idaho 83843, USA

Again, I HIGHLY recommend the whole book!! We will refer to this article in some future posts on this blog. There is much to process and expound on in this short essay.

Author: Pete Rambo

Details in 'About' page @ natsab.wordpress.com Basically, husband of one, father of four. Pastor x 11 years, former business and military background. Micro-farmer. Messianic believer in Yeshua haMashiach!

10 thoughts on “Feminism, Witchcraft and Monogamy”

  1. Pete,
    This James Wesley Stivers’ writing is full of overwrought baseless assertions, and he blasphemously emasculates the Holy Spirit who, Himself, impregnated Mary with a Son, our Lord. The Bible always refers to the Holy spirit as masculine. The guy is wrong. Who would delight in emasculating God? Satan, and apparently this guy.

    The monogamy of ancient times was created in order to insure a static and equalitarian society.
    LOL Baseless! That is not why God created Adam and Eve as a monogamous couple.

    Monogamy could only be sustained by public prostitution.
    An overwrought baseless assertion that ignores the virtue of self-control. Monogamy is circumvented by prostitution. Prostitution makes no positive contribution to a monogamous society. I have been monogamous and never visited a prostitute. The guy is clearly wrong to think I can’t be monogamous without sustaining myself by prostitution.

    Monogamy decouples sex from propagation of the human species and reduces it to the feminine motive for intimacy.
    Nonsense! Monogamous couples have children too, and as I mention below, my marriage unfortunately has zero intimacy, by my wife’s own choosing.

    God made man to procreate, and all things being equal, he will be polygamous. He cannot experience sex as intimacy.
    Seriously! This guy is projecting his own intimacy disorder onto other men now. No wonder married sex wasn’t fun for him. It naturally creates intimacy. People with that type of intimacy disorder actually prefer sex with prostitutes because it lacks intimacy.

    If she does not allow him to procreate, to build a household and an estate, sex with her loses its sanctity. Reduced to a mere exercise in sensual gratification, her idolatrous demand for intimacy turns him into a hedonistic monster or a tortured drone.
    Bearing children does not sanctify sex. Sex is sanctified by God through marriage alone. Childless couples are not doomed to be considered sexually immoral by God. Married sex does not lose its sanctity. Period! What God has sanctified, is sanctified.
    My wife happens to have Intimacy-Anorexia. She has done everything she can to rid our sex of all intimacy. Trust me! That is evil on her part. Disconnected sex conducted in such a way to further distance me and try to remove all joy from it and prevent any intimacy from developing, is not godlier. I’ll tell you what is godly:
    1 Corinthians 7:2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

    Monogamy inevitably cultivates the hedonistic motive in men – the motive which sustains prostitution. For if men were interested in women primarily as the mothers of their children, then there would be no demand for prostitutes. Men go to prostitutes for fun sex, not fruitful sex.
    Hogwash! I’m truly sorry this guy never had fun sex with his wife. Maybe I’m just better equipped or something, but I’ve never failed to have fun while having sex with my wife. And that’s in spite of my wife actually trying to take all the fun out of it for me. LOL

    Sex without procreation inevitably leads to sex without relationship, the kind offered by the prostitute and homosexual.
    Either infertile men are destined to become homosexuals, or this guy is just throwing out his own intimacy disorder red-flags. Most intimacy disorders are on the sex addiction spectrum and are often co-morbid with other sex addictions. As may be the case with this guy.

    Restraining a man’s virility is perverse.
    I didn’t realize our Father God and His laws were so perverse in requiring men to remain sexually moral.

    The polygamous household, on the other hand, reflects a different godhead: the Holy Trinity of Father (ruler), Son (heir/successor) and Holy Spirit (mother/helper).
    Blasphemy! The Holy Spirit is not Jesus mother! That is just stupid. Mary was Jesus mother, the Holy Spirit was Jesus Father.
    Matthew 1:20b fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
    God is not a woman. Both Ariana Grande and James Wesley Stivers are wrong about that.

    The Holy Spirit is the Father’s helper. It is feminine in the ancient Hebrew language and is divisible into the Seven Spirits of Revelation, which divide in order to multiply the Son.
    Hebrew scholars maintain: From a grammatical standpoint, the words used to refer to the Holy Spirit are consistently masculine.

    (see The Mother Heart of God)
    I’m going to say. “No Thanks”. to the blasphemous emasculation of God, even the Father.

    Polygamy is the weapon which strikes at the Achilles heel of Satan’s kingdom.
    Good Grief! Our weapon is the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God. And God’s word makes no mention of using polygamy as a weapon against Satan. Who might want us to leave off using God’s word against Satan, and use a dysfunction prone family model instead? It wouldn’t be God! I’ll list some folks who had Bible recorded dysfunction as a result of their polygamist marriages: Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Elkanah, David, Solomon, God(allegorically speaking). That is 7 out of the 10 you listed in your post “Our Polygynous Fathers”. And the other three might well have had dysfunctions we just weren’t told about.

    And I’m still not saying polygyny is forbidden, or necessarily bad, but, It certainly isn’t as James Wesley Stivers claims.

    Like

    1. Sharkly,

      Thank you for your detailed reply. Lots of thoughts in here to address!!

      You say: James Wesley Stivers’ writing is full of overwrought baseless assertions, and he blasphemously emasculates the Holy Spirit who, Himself, impregnated Mary with a Son, our Lord. The Bible always refers to the Holy spirit as masculine.

      Stivers’ essay is more of a ClifNotes thread without all of the details between each major point, therefore one should dig deeper… I’m fairly certain we do not fully understand the working’s of God and the overshadowing of Miriam (Mary), but in Hebrew ‘spirit’ is feminine… and is portrayed as a Wisdom and as woman… So, somehow that has to be factored into your picture if you take a strongly literal approach to the incarnation event…..

      Sharkly quoted Stivers: The monogamy of ancient times was created in order to insure a static and equalitarian society. [then said] LOL Baseless! That is not why God created Adam and Eve as a monogamous couple.

      No, God created them and made them a ‘one flesh’ (married?) couple. He never mandates or even implies monogamy as any sort of standard or ideal. That is Christian fiction that has been blown up by many. We eisegetically read that into the creation story because that’s what our culture tells us, but Scripture never says any such thing. Indeed, God describes Himself as polygynous in three different passages of Scripture…

      The root of legislated monogamy as the only acceptable form of marriage is seen in Greece, 700 years before Jesus/Yeshua. In fact, “Aristotle viewed monogamous marriage as the foundation of the polis.” (The Western Case for Monogamy over Polygamy by John Witte, Cambridge Press, p. 105) He viewed it as a necessary step to remove power blocks from the family and transfer it to the state with attendant loyalties. The solution then to the excess women in the culture (women to men is always >1:1) was to allow prostitution, especially in the Temples, because it was profitable. Further, inconsequential sex with slaves and mistresses and no fault divorce.

      NONE of those things existed in Israel when they were obedient to God’s laws. Sex had consequences. Namely, marriage and responsibilities.

      Stivers is right, he just doesn’t spell out every step or all the research behind his statements. My independent research, before I found him, corroborates exactly what he says, even if in short hand.

      Sharkly says: [Stivers: Monogamy could only be sustained by public prostitution.] An overwrought baseless assertion that ignores the virtue of self-control.

      Man’s legislation can never force a morality that is superior to God’s Laws. God cannot and will not bend the will of men He created to adhere to a standard above His own. To do so is to admit that He somehow erred in His creation and man needs to make it better. God never mandated or created man as monogamous. Indeed, some men have the gift of celibacy, as Paul indicates, and some men have the gift of polygyny, as God clearly regulates in His Word. (He never regulates a sin…) Therefore, man, if designed and created to be fruitful and multiply, and given the desire and ability to care for more than one woman, can lawfully (God’s law) do it, but that includes the responsibilities that go with it. When man’s laws seek to curb a God-given desire, they are incapable of doing so, thereby creating a ‘sin’ against culture. Of necessity, prostitution flourishes when men are restrained by something other than the Spirit and will of God, particularly when He created them contrary to man’s laws.

      Put differently: In The Great Omission, Clyde Pilkington Jr demonstrates that women out number men in every time and place in history (except where China was killing girls). Excess women in the culture, if not allowed to marry in a polygynous environment, thus balancing the equation, act as ‘free radicals’ searching for a mate. They have needs (protection, provision, intimacy) and by nature seek to have them met. Men, in the same cultural cocktail, will seek to meet those needs… A Godly culture solves the problem by doing what His Law allows. A pagan culture mandates unnatural rules (monogamy-ONLY) and then winks at the sins that it creates.

      I could answer the rest of your claims, each has a solid and viable refutation… Maybe lots of good fodder for future articles. I do need to address the final comment:

      Sharkly, citing Stivers, then responding: Polygamy is the weapon which strikes at the Achilles heel of Satan’s kingdom.
      Good Grief! Our weapon is the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God. And God’s word makes no mention of using polygamy as a weapon against Satan. Who might want us to leave off using God’s word against Satan, and use a dysfunction prone family model instead? It wouldn’t be God! I’ll list some folks who had Bible recorded dysfunction as a result of their polygamist marriages: Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Elkanah, David, Solomon, God(allegorically speaking). That is 7 out of the 10 you listed in your post “Our Polygynous Fathers”. And the other three might well have had dysfunctions we just weren’t told about.

      My comment: Indeed our weapon IS the Word of God. God’s prescription is for women to be married and under the covering of a man. Women outnumber men, therefore, we best dig deeper in the Word than gloss thoughts on ‘monogamy-only’ as God’s prescription for a healthy society. Indeed, as 113Restoration and much of the ‘kol Israel series’ on natsab.com demonstrate, the foundation of a proper and healthy society is patriarchy and polygyny is God blessed subset that positively affects ALL marriages, whether mono or plural.

      ‘Dysfunction prone’ is gross and biased mischaracterization of God’s Word concerning marriage and the patriarchs. Show me any ‘dysfunction’ in plural marriage, and I’ll show you exactly the same dysfunction in monogamous marriage, including jealousy and rivalry. Read Hebrews 11 and the list of polygynous men ‘approved by God.’ Evaluate the ‘dysfunction’ properly and lay the sin where it belongs: with the sinner. The issue is not and never has been the form of marriage, it is always the heart!

      Sharkly, I appreciate your extended comment, but your reaction is not unlike those who have never really dug into God’s Word on the issue and wrestled with what Scripture says about marriage v. the church traditions lifted from Greco-Roman paganism. FYI, it’s called ‘TRADITIONAL marriage’ for a reason. No one dare call the monogamy-ONLY position ‘Biblical marriage,’ because that opens a can of worms they can’t deal with within the confines of church dogma.

      Shalom!!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Pete,
        You know I’m always going to take issue with anyone who tries to feminize or emasculate God, like James Wesley Stivers.

        Jesus our Lord was both fully God and fully a man, and not in the least bit female. He didn’t need to be to fully embody all of the Godhead.
        Colossians 2:9 For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

        Some critics point out that the Greek word for “spirit,” pneuma, is neuter (not gender specific) or that the Hebrew Old Testament word for “spirit,” ruach, is used as feminine in Genesis 1:2. However, the gender of a word in Hebrew or Greek does not specifically indicate the gender identity of what the word identifies.
        You use the gendered pronouns and the words around to establish the sex of something in Hebrew and Greek.
        From a grammatical standpoint, the words used to refer to the Holy Spirit are consistently masculine. … There is no justification for belief in a female member of the Trinity.

        Like

      2. I think Elohim is a bit more complex than our man-made doctrinal explanations. .. and, I do not think Stivers ’emasculated’ God… he may just understand things a little differently than either of us… chew the meat, spit out the bones.; )

        Like

  2. Regarding your sex/ratio argument, there isn’t really much excess of females.
    In humans, the natural ratio between males and females at birth is slightly biased towards the male sex, being estimated to be about 1.05 or 1.06 males/per female born. … The sex ratio for the entire world population is 101 males to 100 females (2018 est.).
    If you still want to assume a slight excess of females, and assume that your typical polygynist wants 4 wives, if more than about 1 in 100 men are polygynous, then there is going to be a shortage of wives for the other men.
    Unless you start selectively exterminating or castrating men(a great evil against the image of God), there isn’t going to be room for hardly any polygyny without defrauding other men of wives. We can’t all have multiple wives, by how God naturally has set the sex ratio.

    Like

    1. Actually, the numbers are quite a bit more skewed than your comment. In ‘We Want for Our Sisters what we want for ourselves,’ Patricia Dixon-Spear demonstrates with her (I believe) doctoral research that the ratio is way out of balance, particularly when one removes homosexuals, deadbeats, prisoners, addicts, homeless, bachelors, MGTOWs, etc from raw census data. She proves a much larger problem than even Pilkington’s ‘The Great Omission’ dare state.

      Defrauding is another interesting idea… does a man have a right to have a wife, or is that a privilege? Are some men more qualified? More capable?

      Put another way, assume a 1:1 ratio… does a woman have to take the least qualified dirt bag just because she last in line? Or, Biblically, should she have the option of being the second wife of the most qualified man who is a Godly leader and good provider? Wouldn’t the latter scenariocause men to be better men? Monogamy-only in a 1:1 ratio is enforced socialism that rewards mediocrity. … and, punishes women.. I’d stay single, too!

      Like

      1. Put another way, assume a 1:1 ratio… does a woman have to take the least qualified dirt bag just because she is last in line? Or, Biblically, should she have the option of being the second wife of the most qualified man who is a Godly leader and good provider?

        Pete, I’m glad you are wanting to restore God’s patriarchal order for society, but yet it seems we are all so steeped in Feminism, that you have still come at the issue from a feminist perspective of seeking what is best for women.
        First off, degrading men and making men out to be dirt bags is what feminism does. As men, restoring the respect and honor of men is of primary importance in getting men and women both to see that having men in charge is in the best interest of everybody.
        Romans 12:10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.

        Next: Women were created for men.(1 Corinthians 11:9 … There is a lot of good stuff in the first half of that chapter!)
        Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
        Even those men, sons of Adam, images of God, whom you call dirt bags, are not well off being alone. The Lord God has determined it! And God intended that they get, from His provision, a helper. “Meet” is defined as – to satisfy of to fulfill. Eve was created to satisfy Adam, she was God’s gift to Adam, while also becoming a test for Adam, due to her weakness. Do you not find it interesting that the one woman was intended to satisfy and fulfill Adam? Not that wives today realize they exist to help, satisfy, and fulfill their husbands. LOL It might take many to do the job of one!
        Anyhow, The women were created by God so men would not be alone and without wives. Women were not created to serve their own desires and all marry into the harems of the hottest guys leaving the plainer men without wives. Don’t kid yourself, Pete, women aren’t out looking for the most godly men. I don’t believe Genghis Khan was favored because of humility, gentleness, kindness, or self-control. Women will generally do what they are allowed to do, and are held accountable for. It is up to men to enact and enforce God’s will upon society. And if it is God’s will that men should not be alone, but that they should have an help meet for them, then men should not selfishly take more wives, if it is going to contribute to defrauding other men of the gift of God. There is a reason incels are angry and some have gone on killing rampages. They have been defrauded, and that makes them angry. If the last in line woman pairs up with the last in line man, she is not being punished as some Feminist might postulate. She is serving her divine purpose, and hopefully is a blessing to that unfortunate man who got the leftover. Yes, a man has a divine right to take a wife, that is what God made women for. It doesn’t mean every man will always avail themselves of their right, for one reason or another, or that life is fair, and all will be offered a wife according to their right. Assuming that all women, if given a choice, would opt for husbands far more attractive than you, would you still think of it as “rewarding mediocrity” if a maverick woman decided to marry you anyhow? We certainly don’t live up to ideals in this world, but I believe it would be ideal if every marriageable man had the option to marry a marriageable woman in their own league, so to speak. That each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.(1 Corinthians 7:2b) You can’t have the top 80% of women all bedding the top 20% of men, and not realize that the other 80% of men have already been selfishly defrauded even if they do still have some slim chance of getting a noncompetitive wife. The marriage market is horrible for men these days, and I fear polygyny would only make it more dysfunctional.
        While I understand the threat-point of getting another wife, if the current one is underperforming, I don’t think that situation was God’s intention for either party. If he is such a “qualified man who is a Godly leader and good provider” you’d expect he might better manage his original wife. Yet, if women are actually responsible for making their own moral choices, then regardless of how good their husband’s leadership is, she can still choose to be a great help and a satisfying wife to him.
        I’m imagining a potluck where those in the front of the line each fill up two plates and then the food runs completely out half way through the line. Are you telling me the people in the back of the line are at fault, or somehow don’t deserve food?

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s