New member greetings

PolyPriest

New member
Greetings, all —

I'm new here and fairly new to poly. I'm married and have a girlfriend of about 7 months. (Wife and gf love each other.) I'm almost a pastor of a small independent Catholic church in a southern state, so I'm interested in and developing a theology that explains how polyamory and spirituality fit together. So I'm interested in conversations around faith and poly, especially, as well as how poly works for you.

As I've been reading intensely about poly over the past few months, I've found in interesting how a lot of poly folks seem to be almost like swingers, but with closer, more romantic relationships. It appears that there's an interest (goal?) of meeting more and more partners. I'd like to understand that.

That's not me. I'm a married guy with a girlfriend, but, at least right now, I have no interest in dating others. I realize that may be NRE speaking, but for now, I have two women who love me and who almost keep me busier that I can manage, so I don't know why I would want more. So I'm still exploring the poly community and figuring out how I fit in or don't.
 
Hi Polypriest - and welcome to the Forum! We will look forward to hearing more of your story as it evolves, and I personally find your study of Christian theology and polyamory to be fascinating - as I have looked into this a bit myself. Please do not hesitate to post any specific thoughts and questions that you might have - we have have a number of experienced poly folks here who are generally friendly and helpful.

If you haven't already, you might peruse the the "Spirituality & Poly" section of our forum. I wrote an article sometime back on "Poly Friendly Churches" that you might find helpful at this link:

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=93095

Although the U-U folks are not technically Christian, they have a similar format in some ways - you might find this link helpful:

https://www.uua.org/offices/organizations/unitarian-universalists-polyamory-awareness

Also, the Christian Metropolitan Community Church (or MCC - founded to serve the LBGTQ community) has publicly endorsed polyamory in a written statement (written as a counter response to the Evangelical Fundamentalist Nashville Statement on Marriage and Family). You might want to arrange to talk to some of their clergy about this. Here is a link to their main web site:

https://www.mccchurch.org/

And a link to their response statement:

https://www.mccchurch.org/an-mcc-response-to-the-nashville-statement/

Please do post any thoughts, discussion points, or conclusions as you work on this idea. There are at least a a few of us here that would find them of interest. (I personally identify as "Christian-Gnostic", of a Platonic de-mytholigized variety)

As I've been reading intensely about poly over the past few months, I've found in interesting how a lot of poly folks seem to be almost like swingers, but with closer, more romantic relationships. It appears that there's an interest (goal?) of meeting more and more partners. I'd like to understand that.

That's not me. I'm a married guy with a girlfriend, but, at least right now, I have no interest in dating others. I realize that may be NRE speaking, but for now, I have two women who love me and who almost keep me busier that I can manage, so I don't know why I would want more. So I'm still exploring the poly community and figuring out how I fit in or don't.

While the most common public perception of polyamory seems to be that of a married couple adding a girlfriend (as well as being the first idea that seems to spring to mind for the married couple considering opening their marriage), in practice this a relatively rare polyamorous configuration. While it seems at first blush to be a very logical arrangement, in reality the number of women who are willing to assume this role on an ongoing basis (not just for an occasional sexual arrangement) is so miniscule, that they are referred to as "unicorns"(that is so rare as to be virtually mythical). There are also ethical considerations that quickly come to light once the situation is looked at more closely. A very thoughtful and well written article on this subject is located here:

https://davidlnoble.livejournal.com/176039.html


Of course, that does not mean an FMF V or Triad never works, it it just rare that it works successfully on any type of long term basis. In actual practice, discussions here indicate that MFM V's are more stable on a long terms basis. However, the most common poly configuration for married couples experienced in polyamory is one in which they both date other partners independently - but, of course, with the full knowledge and consent of all involved, that being the defining characteristic of poly.

And, I don't mean to imply that this scenario specifically applies to you. You did not mention that your girlfriend was "added to your marriage" or that she was "dating you both as a couple" (a situation that many newly open couples seem to seek). Still, you may find the referenced article helpful as it is very insightful. Also, since you have a girlfriend, is your wife interested in having a boyfriend? If she is now or perhaps later, would you object to that? (This potential obvious hypocrisy is disdainfully referred to as the "one penis policy" or OPP in the poly community).

It is probably not accurate to say that most experienced poly folks are always looking for more and more partners. At any time, a poly person may have all the relationships that can successfully manage simultaneously. As it often said in poly circles, love may be infinite, but time, energy, and money are not.

However, if a poly person has - for example, a primary partner (such as a spouse), and another partner that they see perhaps once a week, and they happen to meet someone new and a relationship seems possible, they might add that relationship as well. And, at least theoretically, that would not be a problem for any of those involved (assuming that logistics and pragmatics were not an issue).

Hope this helps. Here's a list of some poly websites that you might find helpful in your research:

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=108191

Best of luck on your journey!

Al
 
Last edited:
...a lot of poly folks seem to be almost like swingers, but with closer, more romantic relationships. It appears that there's an interest (goal?) of meeting more and more partners. ...

At some point you hit poly-saturation - where there isn't enough time or energy to handle any more relationships. On the other hand, perhaps you are conflating "dating" and "partnership" - one may date a number of people before they find a partner!
 
Welcome, Polypriest. Independent Catholic seems to be an oxymoron... since catholic means universal, and independent is almost the opposite of that. I'd be interested to learn more, since I really enjoy learning about religions.

I am (female) poly, and bi or pansexual. I have a live-in long term female partner, and she has a bf she sees 2 or 3 times a week. I don't currently have a bf I see that often. My current male partner is only available about every other week. I prefer only 2 partners but I'm still seeking another bf since male companionship only twice a month isn't nearly enough.

However, I don't like spreading myself too thin... having too many partners is exhausting and confusing. I'd suspect the "polyamorous" people you may have met or read about are really NRE addicts? Most of us seek a deeper connection with fewer partners.
 
And, I don't mean to imply that this scenario specifically applies to you. You did not mention that your girlfriend was "added to your marriage" or that she was "dating you both as a couple" (a situation that many newly open couples seem to seek). Still, you may find the referenced article helpful as it is very insightful. Also, since you have a girlfriend, is your wife interested in having a boyfriend? If she is now or perhaps later, would you object to that? (This potential obvious hypocrisy is disdainfully referred to as the "one penis policy" or OPP in the poly community).

It is probably not accurate to say that most experienced poly folks are always looking for more and more partners. At any time, a poly person may have all the relationships that can successfully manage simultaneously. As it often said in poly circles, love may be infinite, but time, energy, and money are not.

Thanks for the thoughtful response and welcome. My GF is someone we had known for about a year and she and I ended up having some intense conversation and a sexual encounter which morphed quickly into a relationship. She has a good friendship with my wife and is at our home frequently, including a couple of overnights a week. We've traveled together, the three of us went to the movies last night and will be together for New Year's Eve tonight. Our grown(ish) kids know her and see her cuddled up with us and spending the night. It's a good experience so far.

As far as my wife having a boyfriend, she's exploring a relationship with a guy she's known since college and has long carried a torch for her. They hooked up at a class reunion a couple of months ago and have been steadily talking since. I'm fine with that - I'm pleased that she's getting and enjoying some attention.

I'm rambling a little, but the "looking for more and more partners" comment was because I've observed the seemingly prevalent interest in dating. I'm not particularly interested in that. I wasn't looking to date when my girlfriend and I got together. I know that during the days when I was single, I enjoyed meeting and dating new people. And when we were swinging, meeting new couples was always fun. But while recreational sex was a fun pasttime, I'm more into the relationships I have and not what was (for me) the "sport" of always looking for the next one.
 
...the "looking for more and more partners" comment was because I've observed the seemingly prevalent interest in dating. I'm not particularly interested in that. I wasn't looking to date when my girlfriend and I got together. I know that during the days when I was single, I enjoyed meeting and dating new people. And when we were swinging, meeting new couples was always fun. But while recreational sex was a fun pastime, I'm more into the relationships I have and not what was (for me) the "sport" of always looking for the next one.

Where have you observed actual polyamorists who are "always looking for the next one for recreational sex"? That doesn't sound like polyamory to me.

Of course, one can be an actual polyamorist, enjoy our long term deep relationships with established partners, and still be open to less committed, more sex based, relationships. But they are 2 different interests some people have. You can be poly, and ALSO into random sex, or hot wifing, or cuckolding, or kinks in the BDSM realm, or swinging.
 
Welcome, Polypriest. Independent Catholic seems to be an oxymoron... since catholic means universal, and independent is almost the opposite of that. I'd be interested to learn more, since I really enjoy learning about religions.

It is an oxymoron and a phrase I don't like, but it is the predominant phrase for the many small Catholic churches who are not in communion with Rome. I sometimes say "Non-Roman Catholic" instead. Google "independent Catholic" or "independent sacramental movement" and you'll find lots of us out here! We are in relationship with other congregations, just not subject to the authority of Rome. Our structure is not monarchical but more horizontal.

My wife and I have been married almost 15 years. As I mentioned earlier, my girlfriend and I have been together only about 7 months. I know that it is likely not to last forever because of our significant age difference, but it feels pretty solid for now. It's not a live-in situation yet, but she is moving next month to be much closer to us. If we're all still happy with things in another year, maybe we'll consider combining households.
 
Greetings PolyPriest,
Welcome to our forum. Please feel free to lurk, browse, etc.

I am in an MFM V, none of the three of us are looking for any new people to date. You can read more about my situation in my blog if you want. I would say it is unusual for a poly person to want more and more partners, two or three partners total seems to be about average for most polys, four partners is possible but unusual. At least that's my perspective.

Definitely check out our Spirituality & Polyamory board, for more info on how polyamory relates to spirituality and religion. It is refreshing to hear of someone such as yourself, who is involved in religion yet is also a practicing poly. I hope we can discuss that topic with you, and answer any questions you may have.

Sincerely,
Kevin T., "official greeter" :)

Notes:

There's a *lot* of good info in Golden Nuggets. Have a look!

Please read through the guidelines if you haven't already.

Note: You needn't read every reply to your posts, especially if someone posts in a disagreeable way. Given the size and scope of the site it's hard not to run into the occasional disagreeable person. Please contact the mods if you do (or if you see any spam), and you can block the person if you want.

If you have any questions about the board itself, please private-message a mod and they'll do their best to help.

Welcome aboard!
 
Where have you observed actual polyamorists who are "always looking for the next one for recreational sex"? That doesn't sound like polyamory to me.

That wasn't a quote from me, if you'll review. I was commenting that the recreational sex was fun for me when we were swinging. And *I* was often looking for the next opportunity. That's not what I'm interested in now.

What I have heard on poly podcasts is people talking about having had "several first dates this month" -- I've also read commentary about what one should have on an OKCupid or Tinder profile. That's actively looking. Just saying that I'm not looking for more first dates or partners. If I happen to meet someone, I'm always open to how I can develop new friendships and then if something happens, I'll work with it. But for now, my plate is plenty full. I'd have been fine with only my wife, but my girlfriend just grabbed my attention and here we are. :)
 
Greetings PolyPriest,
Definitely check out our Spirituality & Polyamory board, for more info on how polyamory relates to spirituality and religion. It is refreshing to hear of someone such as yourself, who is involved in religion yet is also a practicing poly. I hope we can discuss that topic with you, and answer any questions you may have.

I'll check it out, and your blog as well. I'll be happy to discuss things with anyone. I've been active as a pastor and theologian (PhD) for some time -- I'm 58 -- so definitely have some thoughts on these things.
 
Polypriest wrote:
Thanks for the thoughtful response and welcome. My GF is someone we had known for about a year and she and I ended up having some intense conversation and a sexual encounter which morphed quickly into a relationship. She has a good friendship with my wife and is at our home frequently, including a couple of overnights a week. We've traveled together, the three of us went to the movies last night and will be together for New Year's Eve tonight. Our grown(ish) kids know her and see her cuddled up with us and spending the night. It's a good experience so far.

As far as my wife having a boyfriend, she's exploring a relationship with a guy she's known since college and has long carried a torch for her. They hooked up at a class reunion a couple of months ago and have been steadily talking since. I'm fine with that - I'm pleased that she's getting and enjoying some attention.

Sounds like a good, solid start to healthy polyamory!

I'm rambling a little, but the "looking for more and more partners" comment was because I've observed the seemingly prevalent interest in dating

As others have mentioned, many poly folks do often date multiple people if they have the time. Some of these dates might eventually become partners. If a poly person is currently poly-saturated with no time for more partners, they might still go out on an occasional date for fun - or not, depending on the particular "contracts" they might have with current partners.

Al
 
That wasn't a quote from me, if you'll review. I was commenting that the recreational sex was fun for me when we were swinging. And *I* was often looking for the next opportunity. That's not what I'm interested in now.

What I have heard on poly podcasts is people talking about having had "several first dates this month" -- I've also read commentary about what one should have on an OKCupid or Tinder profile. That's actively looking. Just saying that I'm not looking for more first dates or partners. If I happen to meet someone, I'm always open to how I can develop new friendships and then if something happens, I'll work with it. But for now, my plate is plenty full. I'd have been fine with only my wife, but my girlfriend just grabbed my attention and here we are. :)

Yep, sounds like they are talking about dating. I am poly and currently have no partners. Finding one, much less more than one, woman who is poly as well isn't easy. That includes poly women who can fit into my schedule. Being monogamous would be so much easier. So yeah, poly people search until they don't have to anymore.
 
That wasn't a quote from me, if you'll review. I was commenting that the recreational sex was fun for me when we were swinging. And *I* was often looking for the next opportunity. That's not what I'm interested in now.

What I have heard on poly podcasts is people talking about having had "several first dates this month" -- I've also read commentary about what one should have on an OKCupid or Tinder profile. That's actively looking. Just saying that I'm not looking for more first dates or partners. If I happen to meet someone, I'm always open to how I can develop new friendships and then if something happens, I'll work with it. But for now, my plate is plenty full. I'd have been fine with only my wife, but my girlfriend just grabbed my attention and here we are. :)

Oh I did misunderstand a bit. You say youve seen poly folk who are interested in more and more partners. They are dating on okc and tinder.

If I have a steady bf, along with my long term gf, I am usually content. Unfortunately, while my gf and I have been together 10 years, the longest a relationship with a guy has lasted has been 2 1/2 years. I wonder why... I think men don't take to polyamory as well as women do, at least that's been my experience. As a man I've been chatting with recently said, as a man, most men are idiots.

My gf has been lucky. After several years while we were together, of only 2 relationships with men, one lasting only a couple months, one lasting about 1 1/2 years, she had a gap with no bf, but now has had the same one for 5 years, and isn't looking for anyone else.

I need to dip back into the dating well again and again because men I've dated seem to end up having issues... one was a narcissist (and I didn't realize for a long time), one lost his mother and stopped wanting a gf while he was grieving, one finished college and moved away, and last I heard, got a mono gf, one turned out to be a flaky NRE addict and started hitting on my gf after his NRE for me faded, one rekindled a relationship with an old flame and told me he'd only be able to see me once a month, and then there were a couple for whom I lost interest as well, just got bored or felt that we weren't long term compatible.

And in between those longer term relationships, I've been on dozens of first or second dates that ended up going nowhere.

But unlike you, and maybe your wife, where new partners just sort of dropped into your laps, whereas you'd been content with monogamy earlier, I am hardwired poly, and bisexual, and feel like something is missing if I don't have a bf I can see at least once a week, as well as having my live-in gf. Another factor is my gf has a lower libido than I do. So, she's happier when I am getting laid regularly by someone else. There is less pressure on her to engage with me, and that paradoxically boosts her libido...!
 
Sig line?

Still learning to navigate the site. I like the details people share about their various relationships/identities at the bottom of their messages.

Where does one set that up?
 
Hi PolyPriest,

You can use the following link ... http://www.polyamory.com/forum/profile.php?do=editsignature ... to set up your relationships/identities at the bottom of your messages. Another way to do that is, go to the top of any forum page (while logged in), click on "Quick Links" and you will see "Edit Signature" below that. It's the same link, in essence you post your relationships "in lieu of" a signature line.

Hopefully that makes sense.
Sincerely,
Kevin T.
 
I'll check it out, and your blog as well. I'll be happy to discuss things with anyone. I've been active as a pastor and theologian (PhD) for some time -- I'm 58 -- so definitely have some thoughts on these things.

For me, the correspondence between Pliny the Younger and Emperor Trajan in 112-113 is the first genuine extrabiblical mention of Christians and the most accurate representation of their original beliefs and practices. Which I admire very much.

I'm pretty sure Eusebius is the forger of the Testimonium Flavianum, and the entire ridiculous passage is fake, not an "interpolation". The whole "living Jesus" thing, for the Romans, was to fabricate a lineage from the nonexistent Peter, the first nonexistent Pope, to the present line of predators.

Marcion seems to have brought forward the first writings, with the imaginary Paul who never meets any earthly Jesus and that matches Pliny's description of a spiritual Christ and not a person who actually lived.

Mark, as the first Gospel, in its original shorter version, contains an extremely important ending. The women leave the tomb and tell no-one because they were afraid. That is why nobody knows of any resurrection until Mark tells of it in his Gospel.

The period from the first Ecumenical Council called by Emperor Constantine with the forger Eusebius in 325 CE to the end of that century, the Canon of the Catholic Church was established. So inspiring material like the Gospel of Thomas was destroyed. That one was especially dangerous because it preached the Kingdom of God was at hand. There can be no guilt-tripping and lording over a laity for entry to heaven when we are already there.

The question for any serious scholar becomes, given the criminal conduct of the Catholic Church (Donation of Constantine, lol. Indulgances, etc.) in fabricating and forging it's own history, how do you sift through the stinking pile of manure to obtain the Christian Insight?

I've given you mine, and it is in that crucial Pliny-Trajan correspondence. And it is tremendous.

It does not speak to Polyamory. But I don't think it needs to because Christianity at that time was extremely simple and had only two common features across homes that practiced it: they decided they should keep the fruits of their labor instead of giving it to people richer than them.

The Eucharest was a feast, not a wafer and shot glass. Because instead of giving away their grain and meat, money, doves and all manner of ridiculous tithing to "the man", they just ate what they produced themselves.

When you say "body of Christ" you are downing a leg of lamb. When you say "blood of Christ" you are chugging to quench a thirst, and that feast begins coursing through your veins as you talk about what good people you want to be with not lying and stealing, being honest in trade, etc.

We can infer a great deal from such a simple philosophy. You don't build elaborate churches and drape golden robes over plenipotentiaries. You build your own house. Eat your own food. Meet with your family, neighbors, and friends.

A few key principles can address all the important questions in associating with others. You don't need a thousand pages of clearly contradictory rules and regulations. The Bible is a political document. When the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Judea merged, they consolidated beliefs and that is why there are doublets like the two creation stories, one right after the other.

It can't be both, and a lot of the material is borrowed from Sumerians and what not eg Epic of Gilgamesh anyway. We ignore mountains of crazy stuff. One of the great questions at Nicea in 325 was how castration affected you. So they decided that if you cut your own nuts off, you could not be a Christian. Someone else had to cut your nuts off. Eunichs for Christ!

The Trinity? A political settlement. Factions did not agree if Christ was a spirit (first version), a man who lived (later version) or God himself and they made everyone happy. He is all three. What a farce.

Emperor Constantine created an Empire-wide religion in order to register every person with a local parish so that taxation, military draft, and government surveilance could be conducted. The original Christians had no Churches, that was the whole point of being Christian. They tolerated wide variation in practices beyond the feasting and promising to be good people.

So why did Constantine build all those Churches for Christians? For every person in the Empire now required to be Christian? To co-opt it, and use it for administration of the Empire. My God, it's oldest tradition, the Eucharist, became a sick joke.

So where do you start, where do you break off from official Christianity of any kind, really?

Just as soon as you start building churches and taking tithes instead of feasting with family or those you consider same - and pledging to be good, I figure. As per Pliny's description.

Poly people can do that.
 
Another strong contender for the meaning of the Trinity: creator God the Father (the word/Logos), Spirit the Mother Sophia (Wisdom, the spirit/breath/wind on the waters), and then the son Joshua/Iesous/Jesus (the archetypal Hero). This reflects the archaic mention in the Hebrew scriptures of gods being attracted to human women, and mating with them. This is in fact, a common trope in many ancient religions. So you have 3 goddesses in the NT, the spiritual one as pure Sophia, the human Mary as mother, and the other human Mary (Magdalene) as wife. Sophia was incarnated as mother and wife, as in the "gnostic" poem, Thunder, Perfect Consciousness.

Jesus never calls his father Yahweh, despite being thought of as a Jew. Gnostics thought of the God of Jesus as a god higher than Yahweh. They called Yahweh Ialdabaoth, the architect, the jealous one. He may have created Eden or Israel, but not the entire planet, much less the universe. The Father is the god beyond definition. And Jesus is made to deny Mary, "Woman, what have I to do with you?" since she is a mere mortal.

Mary Magdalene, however, is Jesus' true apostle, full of gnosis, spiritual knowledge, powerful. She is spiritually higher than Jesus since she anoints him.

The spirit came down from heaven, even in the later Gospels, as a dove, an extremely obvious Goddess symbol to everyone living at that time. Several goddesses were associated with doves. (And some with snakes, which is why I like the idea the snake in the tree in Eden was Asherah.)

Seminarians learn all this in school, yet go on to teach the common lies to unsuspecting and naive congregations, and collect their salaries, and rape children and nuns. And of course, back in the day, the Roman emperors wanted all the power, so called gnostic religion heresy. They are not written to have burned gnostic gospels, teachings, sayings, poems, interpretations of the Hebrew scriptures, but they did make it illegal to copy them, so the old gospels rotted away to dust (the Nag Hammadi ones and a few others were lucky exceptions).
 
Seminarians learn all this in school, yet go on to teach the common lies to unsuspecting and naive congregations...

This made me really angry when I looked back at how cunning my pastor's had been with their wording, and what we were selectively taught.

Something as seemingly trivial as saying "this is the time we celebrate the birth of Christ" is actually quite instructive for its manipulative greed.

The Pastor knows he is lying, he knows a pope superimposed the fake birthday over the solstice. It has the effect of suppressing accurate celestial knowledge, calling it "pagan" with a lie.

The donations at Christmas are by FAR the greatest revenue in the annual cycle of tithing. The Pastor can say that he never really lied because he did not expressly state "Dec 25 is the Birthdate of Jesus". Since he didn't lie, then he didn't lie for money.

We Lie for Jesus because you don't want to throw out all the good the Church can do just because it is based on lies, pursuit of power, greed, etc.
 
Mary Magdalene, however, is Jesus' true apostle, full of gnosis, spiritual knowledge, powerful. She is spiritually higher than Jesus since she anoints him.

I've read of mystical/metaphysical traditions that hold that Mother Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Jesus were all fully enlightened souls, incarnating as a group to bring the message of love and forgiveness into the savagery of the Roman world (and this rings true to me - but to each his own). Because he was a male in a male world, Jesus was the one that was then made into a god by his disciples. What else were they to do with him - they could not begin to fathom his enlightenment (any more than Budha's disciples could his). Mother Mary they made holy - and Mary Magdalene they discredited (wouldn't fit the script for Jesus to have had a wife and had sex).

And because he was in the monotheistic Jewish world, the trinity theology was devised as a way to explain how there could be more than one god. The church wrote what was to eventually become the codified Nicene theology to their own ends and - to be fair - in an effort for them to explain the unexplainable. While throwing out the Gospel of Thomas, the Valentine Gospel of Truth, and other key Gnostic documents that were almost certainly much closer to what Jesus actually had to say. (And, obviously politics were involved as well. As I understand it, if it were not for the wife of Constantine having been opposed to the concept of reincarnation, it might still be a part of Christian theology today - as it was among both the Jews and Christians of the time).

Just adding a few cents of my own to the discussion. :)

Polypriest - would enjoy you joining the discussion as well! Al
 
Back
Top