Kiki: Name them sir, and I shall surely steady your vision.

Now I am stating that godly polygyny does exist and that it will increase as we see the day approaching.

Scripture disagrees with you in this respect: Godliness will not increase, but decrease. Apostasy or a great "falling away" is the precursor to Christ's return (2 Thess 2:3).

It has existed throughout the church ages in every dispensation

 The one singular dispensation of grace that contains the seven church ages of Revelations 2-3 began with the outpouring of the Holy Ghost and will conclude with the rapture. I doubt not that polygyny has existed throughout all that time, but you have yet to convince me that it has merited the approval of God in this dispensation of grace.

... So your point about opening up polygyny to the general public is moot.

What point is that? I merely sliced through the fluff to identify the intentions of your argument against government mandated monogamy. Like you intimated, statistics prove that worldly men and women alike already take unto themselves multiple partners and that even those who have come to the Lord are divorcing and remarrying almost as much as the rest of the population. If the Lord does not need the government to sanction a marriage in order for Him to sanctify it, then where's your argument? God gave you a revelation that polygyny can be sanctified? Then you either need to live in a place where that is legal or reconcile with the scriptures that charge you to obey the authorities He has placed over you. You have no authority from scripture to declare government sanctioned monogamy evil. (Your term "mandated monogamy" is somewhat a misnomer, because the government does not force people to be married. It only forbids people to be married to more than one spouse at a time, and at present, also forbids homosexuals to marry.)

People do what seems good in their own eyes and will continue to do so. Sadly, they do not operate in the holy institution of marriage in a godly fashion, either polygynously or otherwise, without the first works. Even those who would lay claim to "Christian Polygamy" are usually "out to lunch" as are those who dare to lay claim to "Christian Monogamy". How many couples in the Lord do you know who have truly satisfied the MONOGAMY equation? If they fail in the slightest they must concede that they are indeed polygamists for they have become ONE FLESH with more than one partner. PERIOD.

No contest. That verse that contains the phrase "and such were some of you" lists a whole bunch of sins on par with polygamous fornications and concludes "But ye are washed..." The blood of Jesus cleanses all from those past sins committed in the ignorance of our unbelief. I have no doubt that there are plenty of Christians who have failed and miss the mark when it comes to what God expects of marriage. I make no excuse. Yet the word of God is true.

I find it ironic that those advocates of COMPULSARY MONOGAMY would stomp around and demand that even those who have been "married" prior to salvation in Jesus name are still obligated to their former spouses.

I thank you for helping me to see the Full Bible Truth of this matter. Indeed, I was ignorant in how to divide the word of God concerning those who were divorced before coming to the Lord. You are right about it and I do believe that I pointed that out some time ago. Godly marriage requires God's presence. Everything else is fornication. A person who was divorced before coming to the Lord is free to marry. A person who divorces after coming to the Lord is not, except in the cases defined by the Lord.

It is as though they are trying to have it both ways. They want the spouses to suffer the penalties of marriage to more than one but they don't want them to enjoy the benefits. All sorts of wickedness arise out of this: such as divorcing the spouse that they are with at the time only to return to those former wallowing in the mire of mortal marriage. Baby, when it's gone.. It’s gone. Therefore if what they say is true, that we are subject to all those spouses we married and divorced prior to baptism then it is time for the church to wake up and realize that polygamy is the choice of the majority... And if what Kiki40 says is true, then we should also obey that majority government of the people, by the people, for the people and legalize polygamy.  

Technically, since you defined polygamy as simply having more than one sex partner in either serial marriages or fornications, it is already legal.  It is because the church does not recognize polygyny as a sanctifiable marriage situation that you are so miffed, not the government. You live in a place that allows it and you're still squawking about it! 

So it suffices us well to forgive those souls who trespass against us and to love one another even as Jesus first loved us. Now you know, that this cannot be accomplished without the true love of God. That is why women in polygynous marriages will suffer a great deal of trouble in the flesh even if their husband hasn't already committed suicide by the time all their misery has passed. Godly polygyny is selfless. It requires maturity in the Lord that few are able to embrace because their hearts are yet carnal and their minds are constantly dwelling on fleshly things and the things of the world instead of the awesome goodness of God.

We can say the same for godly monogamy.

I'm also saying that l'basar echad is in every way applicable to a husband with more than one wife and that it is applicable to every wife becoming "one flesh" with a husband, regardless of how many wives that said husband may have.

Well, sir, you have the liberty to say whatever you want. But you have yet to prove that God has said such.

I will maintain that God is able to sanctify it.

And I have not yet denied that. I have challenged you to prove it. I do see the potential for that in scripture if it can be aligned. I get cross-eyed every time I try to handle the matter for y'all's many issues with etymologies confuses it something fierce. I am studying still. And as you can see by my continued presence here, I desire the approval of God more than the approval of men.

Let's just pretend for a moment that God does not sanctify polygyny in this dispensation in any case. Paul's instructions to the married believer in 1 Cor 7 cannot be obeyed for the believing husband would have to put away all but one wife (if he wishes to be married) and the believing wife would have to depart from the unbelieving husband unless he be pleased to put away all of his other wives. The believing wife who departs would then have to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband after he has put away all of his other wives. It is either that or all polygynous marriages are automatically voided when one member comes to the Lord, and the believing husband is then free to marry a believing wife and any of his believing wives are free to marry their own husbands, but only in the Lord.

I'm just not happy with either of those options because I feel that NT scripture surely would have addressed the inequity of the monogamous believer being able to possibly win the unbelieving spouse by staying in the union where that option is not available for the polygynous believer. That is not to say that polygyny can be a sanctified option for the unmarried man who comes to the Lord or the man already in a monogamous union with one wife. I do see a precedence in scripture for declaring all unsanctifiable marriages void and allowing for the putting away of those situations in order to gain the favor of God. See Ezra 10. For those conflicts from 1 Cor 7 just named, I remain undecided that there exists such a thing as sanctified polygyny. If a worldly monogamous marriage becomes sanctified by virtue of the newly believing spouse, why not a worldly polygynous one? The only way that it would not is if polygyny across the board is an unsanctifiable situation....like the forbidden marriages of Ezra 10.

If you should disagree with me, that is fully your prerogative and I bear no ill regard toward you for this because I understand that the truth about godly polygyny has always been a revelation from God. Although others, thinking themselves learned, have dared to call it a "private interpretation" (despite the fact that it is featured throughout the HOLY BIBLE in a positive light without rebuke from God) I cannot expect you to receive it if you are not able to receive it.

I rest in my conscious before God that I have made myself available to know if these things you say be so. And that I have contended with the things I believe to be false. I live in a real world and I deal with real people and real pain. I have a real God and a real message and a real salvation. Polygyny is not a real  issue in my world at present, so I can handle it dispassionately here and still render proper respect due other creatures made in the image of God, in whose lives polygyny is a real issue. (At least, I hope that I have done so...and if I have offended, I do apologize and humbly ask forgiveness.) Even if I should be fully convinced that God does not sanctify polygynous unions in this dispensation, I would present my case as to those taken in a fault, with a mind toward restoration, and not as to those who have no knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Brad has been making some excellent points throughout many of these posts and I find it interesting that you will agree with his words in one post whereas, further along, you appear to disagree with the same words in another point. Although I realize it is a woman's prerogative to change her mind this sort of vacillation does not edify the truth of God in the knowledge that He is the Changeless One.

The failure, sir, may well be encased in your capacity to understand my meaning rather than any vascilations on my part.

I think that you would do us all a great service in your dramatic representations of vacillation to affirm the precept that the Bride is certainly NOT the Son. It would be really tough to serve a God who constantly kept changing His mind about His laws.

The Bride is not the Son. I'm truly at a loss as to where that statement came from, though. I haven't visited any other thread yet... 

Surely there are examples in ONENESS of men who have legally acquired brides (plural) and have received the Holy Ghost since they believed.

That is precisely why I endeavor to acknowledge you as brother and pay heed to sound doctrine.

So if their pastors are so hard-hearted as to tell these men that they must now divorce all but one spouse I suggest that they find another pastor. Polygynous men are ANSWERABLE to God for all their wives because marriage is until death.

Godly marriage is until death. You have yet to prove that polygyny can be a godly marriage in this dispensation. And your accusation of hard-heartedness would be levelled against Ezra, for that is exactly what he did.  Observe the list in Ezra 10 that he compiled of the 114 men who saw that they had trespassed against the command of God to not take for themselves foreign wives and note that to remedy the situation, they had to put those wives and the children born to them away. If it can be proven that polygyny is not a sanctifiable situation before God in this dispensation, then polygynists are in a state of trespassing.

Come now, if the blood of Jesus is not able to wash away the bonds of filthy and ungodly marriage how much more will it fail to wash away the other sins! Now I should think that the sons and daughters of God know that BONDAGE to anything ungodly is sinful.

Agreed.

Remember: God hates putting away.

You yourself pointed out that it is not just any "putting away" that He hates, but the "putting away for any cause," or the "dealing treacherously" with the wife of your youth. If it is all putting away that He hates, then explain Ezra 10.

Amen, brother. God has called us to peace. May you have it in abundance.