"Family," Jesus teaches, is a unit consisting of a husband, one or more wives, and the children of that union.  

There are, of course, many who don't want family.  This church is for those who do.

Two hundred years ago and for centuries before that, on marriage, the two became one and that "one" was the husband.  Married couples then loved each other with a love much deeper, for the most part, than we generally know today. And few would argue that the "two becomes one" standard was clearly best for children.  However, two hundred years ago, many, perhaps most, women were prevented from reaching their full potential as productive members of society.  The drive to keep women down was largely driven by the husband's jealousy....to let her go free in the workplace allowed her too much contact with other men.

About a hundred years ago, largely as a result of economic changes, this situation changed completely.  Now, the two remain two and that "two" is one husband and one wife, with the majority of spouses changing partners periodically.  This is hard on everyone, particularly children. Most men have since learned that if their spouse is inclined to cheat, she was not worth keeping in the first place.  But many men, rather than spend their days in a mildly jealous stupor, simply opt for bachelorhood, or just "date around," maintaining several relationships, none so important as to trigger jealous depression.

Today, few want to return to the 200 year old "two become one" standard, and even fewer are content with today's "two remain two" standard.  

The FCJ suggests, conceptually at least, that the way out of this mess, the best way now to get back to the family of Jesus' day, is with a new "two to five becomes one" standard. In short, FCJ posits the "family" itself as an entity, possessing, to the degree possible, all the rights of any other artificial entity.  If a corporation can be a legal person, why not a family?  What if the family members are the only shareholders?  Its not the husband's family, nor the wives' family.  Its just the family.  What if, upon marriage, or no later than 5 years or so thereafter, the parties' each convey their assets to this family entity and receive in place of that property an ownership interest in the family equal to their contribution.

When anything of importance comes up which might affect the family entity, including but not limited to departure of a member, the family is entitled to assert its own rights, which, depending on the circumstances, may seem rather punitive to the departing member. Ownership in this family entity is restricted, in that anyone leaving the family for any reason, including death, must first offer a significant portion of his/her interest to the family itself and then to the shareholders, in proportion to their ownership interest(s) at that time, before leaving it to his/her children.

In this church, the only characteristic of the "two become one" era which is arguably retained is the prohibition against it having more than one adult male member or more than four adult female members. And that just the way this church structures the natural differences between the sexes. This is, in essence, as it was in Jesus' day and, as Ann Druyan might say today, a tip of the hat to that other acknowledged God, nature.  It also retains and builds upon characteristics of the "two remains two" era in that, despite significant differences between the sexes, it makes no other effort to limit the rights of women or men. Each is encouraged to reach her/his own potential within a family structure that better enables him/her to do just that.

Practically speaking, this church provides some hope.  We cannot go on like this.  Over 25% of white, 50% of Hispanic, and 75% of black children are born out of wedlock.  The problem is simple: today's children are not growing up in homes with fathers, and even if lucky enough to have one, the mother often is pursuing a career other than family, even when her children are young.  This Church is devoted to reversing this trend.  Western civilization itself may be at stake.  We cannot continue to raise barbarians with impunity.  The solution is just as simple, though not easy:

If there is one husband and one wife, that wife must choose between career and family and, if she has kids, subjugate her careen until the children get out of high school.  She is no salmon. The very reason she survives the birth of her children is so she can raise them. The very reason her husband survives the birth of his children is so he can support his family. If there is one wife who choses to have children, she has to stay home and raise them until they get out of school. To do less is dishonorable and selfish. Once they are raised, she can pursue her career. This may be unfair to some wives, but so be it.  Her children deserve nothing less. While the children are young, she can only have part time work, if any.  Her focus has to be on the children she created.  

On the other hand, if there are three or four wives, each wife has a lesser burden: one or two of them might pursue a career even when their children are young.  At least their children will be raised in a loving home and the money from the career wives' wages could benefit all.

We might say from this, with some justification, that plural families are only for marriages of child-bearing age, but we would be wrong.  Older Americans have always set the example. There is none more important to a child than a parent. Parents must continue to lead the way, no matter their age.  And these older married persons will be advantaged in their own right, for economies of scale apply across the age-divide and economies of scale are often more important for older persons.  Many, perhaps most women spend their last days alone.  This is neither necessary nor advisable.