Interview With Polygamist Winston Blackmore

CNN ^ | December 8, 2006 | Larry King Live

[Bushwacker777]

"CALLER: Hello. Mr. Blackmore, do any of your wives work?

BLACKMORE: Just about all of them do.

KING: They all do?

BLACKMORE: Yes.

KING: And while they're working, who's watching the kids?

BLACKMORE: Well, they take -- they take turns. I mean, there's nurses; there's schoolteachers. There's some going to school to become, you know...

KING: Do you ever gather with all of them?

BLACKMORE: As often as we can.

KING: With all the wives?

BLACKMORE: Yes.

"

[JRochelle]

You are so misinformed.

Read your Bible. A man shall leave his mother(not mothers) and father and cleave only unto his WIFE. NOT WIVES.

[ApplegateRanch]

Imagine if a man had 3 wives at the same time then started casting them out on the street with their particular children. There would be an uproar.

Only for a little while, then that, too, would become a way of life.

Same as we used to have an uproar when a man tossed his wife and kids out on the streets, before divorce laws were liberalized, making your'serial polygamy' the current way of life.

There are many places in the New Testament that rule this out, and none that permit it. If one takes exception to the words of Paul; or cries "later additions", then try some thing much more deeply embedded:

Matthew 19: (NIV)
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife , and the two will become one flesh'?

Note that it does not say anything about more than one wife; nor that more than two become a conglomerate. In fact, two women "becoming one flesh" would be an abomination, since it would also imply and support lesianism.

Luke 14 (NIV)
26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his own life-he cannot be my disciple.

Note that "wife" is singular, even though in the Greek, "brothers" is plural, implying strongly that a desciple...follower...is monogamous.

[sportutegrl]

While in previous agrarian lifestyles, it may have been practical for a man to have more than one wife; today's consumer driven lifestyle makes more sense to have multiple husbands supporting one wife and her visa bills.

[bahblahbah]

The issue is that from the beginning the ideal is that a man and woman should join together to become one flesh. I would say what Jesus said about divorce would apply equally to polygamy, since Jesus affirms that from the two becoming one flesh is what was meant from the beginning. That being said, I believe that polygamy would be better than the serial monogamy that goes on today.

[ApplegateRanch]

lesianism

Oh, oy! I dropped the "b" in "lesbianism".

Can I just lame it on my keyoard, rothers & sisters?

[Albion Wilde]

Actually, it is very Christian .... assuming that you actually follow the teachings of Christ, who not only NEVER opposed or spoke against polygamy, but actually uses the parable of 10 Virgins in a polygamist marriage under existing Jewish law, and also states that Jewish law is not replaced but fulfilled. Further, King David's six wives were counted as a BLESSING FROM GOD.

Respectfully disagree with your theories. The New International Version and the New Living Translation both call those virgins "bridesmaids," not brides. And most plural wives were added one at a time, not in groups of 10 or more. Men's ability to perform hasn't changed that much since the old days, even the young ones.

Jesus' saying that he came not to replace the law but to fulfill it had to do with the promises of God to his people in Isaiah and elsewhere that a Messiah would come. Your theory is contradicted by most of the epistles, which explain over and over that legalism in following dietary and ritual laws is not the path to salvation, and that following Christ's teachings from the heart frees both the circumcized (Jews) and the uncircumcized (Gentiles) who follow him from the obligation to observe ritual minutiae.

And lastly, while King David's six wives may have been counted a blessing, they, too, were before Jesus' time. Jesus spoke of one husband and one wife. He overturned more than the tables of the tax collectors.

[Albion Wilde]

That doesn't sound like the King James version I am used to

You are correct, sir; it is the New International Version. I also like the New Living Translation, altho my favorite remains the KJV. Here is the KJV passage:

1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

Also, wasn't it God who commanded mankind to marry and have children? And wasn't if God who, through the prophet Nathan, told King David that God had blessed him with six wives?

This was the Old Testament Hebrew practice, one of the many that were revolutionized by Jesus of Nazareth, who came to earth to change mankind's understanding of God, and who wasn't crucified for nothing!

Also, see post 26.

[Albion Wilde]

Actually it IS Christian. Paul instructs the church in Timothy to select its' leaders from the members of it's congregation that have only one wife.....which means that there were accepted members who had more.

Because people who attempt to follow Christ do a thing, does not make it Christ's or Father God's desired behavior. Christianity assumes that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

Also see posts 26 and 27.

[Albion Wilde]

A FAR better argument against polygamy is the demands placed on the man of the house and the difficulty in meeting those requirements. I would postulate that a man with 2 wives would have to bring in...

There can be no better reason than desiring to please God in the way one lives.

[taxcontrol]

As to brides maids.... there is not such word in the ancient Greek. Nor did the Jewish traditions have the equivalent role in their marriage ceremonies.

The word that is used in that parable is translated as virgins in other places in the Bible. As used elsewhere, it refers to a woman who is eligible for marriage. Therefore, to translate as "bridesmaid" significantly alters the meaning to something that was not even present at the time and uses a word and concept that was not present or used in Jesus day.

Selective translation is just as bad as adding unnecessary emphasis as it allows the bias of the translator to alter the original meaning.

[taxcontrol]

Do you REALLY want to go down the Old Testament path for your argument? Because while homosexuality was BANNED by the law, polygamy was not. AND GOD granted King David 6 wives as a blessing.

[taxcontrol]

Sodomy is a practice of homosexuality and as such is banded in the law.

Incorrect about Jesus never discussing marriage as a polygamist marriage... again the parable of the 10 virgins. And while the MEANING of the parable has nothing to do with a polygamist marriage, any person who has read the original Greek and has studied the marriage customs of the 1st Century Jewish traditions would know that what is being described is a marriage. The fact that 5 of the 10 were married to a man that could support 10 wives provides added cultural emphasis that we do not understand. This emphasis shows how much more foolish the 5 that did not make it to the wedding.

While levitate marriage was not compulsory, it is obvious that it was EXPECTED under the law. Ask yourself this. What would happen if the brother did not marry? And while not necessarily polygamist, there is NOTHING in the law that prohibits it from being polygamist.


But by all means, do not take my word for it....or anyone else's. Study the texts for yourself, read the original Greek. Translate each word and explore the alternative meanings. You will find that the milk toast religion that is spoon feed out of most churches today is different from what is written in the original texts.

[taxcontrol]

Your assertion that Jews had given up the practice of polygamy by the Second Temple is patently and provably false. Jews were practicing polygamy well into the middle ages.

In theory, one could marry one's deceased brother's wife, impregnate her with a male heir on the wedding night and divorce her as soon as she gave birth to a son.

You need to go back and study the allowable reasons for divorce were under Jewish law.

Everytime polygamy is discussed in the Hebrew Scriptures it is not valorized.

Once again, a false statement. David's wives were given as a BLESSING FROM GOD. Solomon was never reproached for his polygamy. Rather he was reproached for not keeping his heart on God and loving foreign women 1 Kings 11:2

Now read 2 Samuel 12:8 and answer me this.... What did GOD tell David that he should have done?

[DelphiUser]

>>You are correct, sir; it is the New International Version. I also like the New Living Translation, altho my favorite remains the KJV.

Your intellectual dishonesty here is breathtaking. You “Like” a new translation of the Bible. You then want to hold everyone to a strict interpretation of it’s language. You then dismiss going back to the original source because??? Well you just don’t say.

>>This was the Old Testament Hebrew practice, one of the many that were revolutionized by Jesus of Nazareth

I guess you "like" this unsubstantiated belief as well.

As for 26:

The logic you are assailing is impeccable!

Let’s get the historical order straight shall we?

Abram takes Hagar to wife, has a child by her, has a child by his first wife sari, has a falling out with Hagar sends her away with her son to become the Ishmaelites. Then God asks him to sacrifice his son, Abram is obedient, is called the “Friend of God” has his name changed to Abraham, Sari is renamed Sarah. Abram Takes third wife, with no recorded problems and no loss of Blessings.

If God is unchanging (and he is.)

Then if Abraham Being the “Friend of God” was not a sinner then Polygamy is not a sin now.

Period, End of Story, The end.

Whether or not you “like” it is immaterial.

That said, I think it would take an extraordinary man to successfully live in a polygamous marriage.

I for one am all for marriage, to one wife (all I ever desired).

Polygamy IS biblical, to say anything else is just ignorant, or worse yet willful ignorance.

JM $0.02

[taxcontrol]

I'm miss informed... how interesting.

You say 'read' the Bible. I have, many times. I have studied it in the original Greek and Aramaic translations and read commentary by many scholars. I have read and studied the Apocrypha, and the Nag Hammadi texts. I have also studied the Nicene Creed and other texts both historical and religious. I know what letters and texts make up the bible and why I choose to accept them. Can you say the same? If not, I HIGHLY encourage you to take up the challenge of developing your own personal apologetics. Know what and more importantly, why you believe.

As to your specific reference see Strong's Hebrew (NT refers to Gen 2:24) or Strong's Greek and you will find that the meaning you are attempting to force is not quite so specific in the original texts.

[Albion Wilde]

Because I "like" a translation does not make me intellectually dishonest; that is a figure of speech that DelphiUser seized upon apparently to unleash pride about his Greek translation skillz.

Do not be so quick to judge a FReeper of whom you have no real knowledge, nor to dismiss the power of the Holy Spirit in prayer and revelation to persons who pray daily to be Spirit-led and who study several responsible translations that have all gone back to the original Greek and Hebrew for their source material.

You two seem eager to use corollary "evidence" of ancient practices to justify polygamy rather than the plain words of Jesus. I hope for your sakes He finds your justifications pleasing. I must say I am not impressed by them.

[JRochelle]

Abraham and Sarah didn't have any children. So Sarah decided to 'help' God and had Abraham take Hagar. So they both have children.

From Sarah's stupid idea came the Arabs.

Sarah dies.

Then Abrahan marries Keturah-AFTER Sarah is dead.

Saying polygamy is biblical is true, doesn't mean it was sanctioned by God. Using that method of thinking slavery and stonings, etc. is biblical too.

[JRochelle]

DITTO!

[taxcontrol]

Interesting. I provide historical facts to show where individuals using their own bias has altered the original meaning of the Bible, something easily verifiable by anyone, based upon the actual words of Jesus according to the gospels .....

yet somehow you accuse me of using something other "...the plain words of Jesus". The plain words of Jesus are in the original Greek texts.

Besides, as I have stated before.... don't settle for my words, don't settle for ANYONE's words. Don't even settle for some translation. Go to the original text.

STUDY the Bible... don't just read it. And if you continue to disagree with me, that's fine. It's your life, it's your soul and it will be you who will be judged in the end of days. For something so important, I would recommend to everyone, that they study for themselves and live their life with their understanding of God's truth. Because in the end, it doesn't matter what I say or the Pope says, or your neighbor says, all men have fallen short of the glory of God. No man can bridge the gap to God on their own efforts. Only Jesus can make up the difference.

Therefor, let everyone who claims Christ as their savior live according to their understanding of Christs teachings. On judgment day, we will all find out the truth.

[DelphiUser]

>>Because I "like" a translation does not make me intellectually dishonest;

Nope, it’s what you did after that. (Using a non standard translation to try to prove a point, and rejecting references to the original text) That was intellectually dishonest.

>>that is a figure of speech that DelphiUser seized upon apparently to unleash pride about his Greek translation skillz.

BTW, I have no Greek translation skills, however, I can read English (most of the time).

>>Do not be so quick to judge a FReeper of whom you have no real knowledge,

I honestly could not pick you out of a line up that is true. I dare say, you couldn’t pick me out either (I’ll be the one picking my nose on the end).

I do have analytical skills, less so social graces though.

>>nor to dismiss the power of the Holy Spirit in prayer and revelation to persons who
>>pray daily to be Spirit-led and who study several responsible translations that have all
>>gone back to the original Greek and Hebrew for their source material.

Sorry, Prayer and spirit, while highly recommended are not good debate points.

You never mentioned going back to the original Greek, and even inferred that it was irrelevant. Are you now admitting that the translation could have just as easily been the husband of at least one wife?

>>You two seem eager to use corollary "evidence" of ancient practices to justify polygamy rather than the plain words of Jesus.

Syllogism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Syllogism)

God Does not change.
God specifically approved of Abraham, Jacob, and David before Bathsheba (all polygamists).
God does not have problem with Polygamy.

>>I hope for your sakes He finds your justifications pleasing.

I am quite sure he understands logic, having invented it.

>>I must say I am not impressed by them.

People are seldom impressed by that which they do not understand (it was just too tempting, sorry)

My logic is the dispassionate reasoning of one whose faith, emotion, relationships will not be affected either way by the outcome. God is still god, he never changes, only our perception / understanding of him changes. I am not going to get married to a second wife even if they repealed the law against it tomorrow.

Go with God.