Skip to comments.Interview With Polygamist Winston Blackmore
Posted on 12/13/2006 10:36:35 AM PST by Bushwacker777
"CALLER: Hello. Mr. Blackmore, do any of your wives work?
BLACKMORE: Just about all of them do.
KING: They all do?
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?
(Excerpt) Read more at transcripts.cnn.com ...
1 ...It is good for a man not to marry. 2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. --1 Corinthians 7:1-3
Hey, it is just another lifestyle choice. /sarc
Most American men are polygamists. Only they do it one wife at a time. The most destructive way possible.
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.
Yet that is what we, as a society, approve of today.
If you want to have a dozen wives just do it. Marry yourselves in your church and don;t ask the government for a license or permission, or tax break.
There are many polyamory homes in the Houston area. They are perfectly legal.
That doesn't sound like the King James version I am used to.
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?
Sometimes it is hard to distinguish what is Paul's words and what was added in later.
This is part of the Warren Jeffs sect of Polygamy that broke away to Canada.
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. Not to mention many of the old testament figures had multiple wives and absolutely NOTHING in the New Testement changes that allowance.
God didn't make women to enjoy sexual pleasure so we could get it once every six weeks. :(
Back to logic class for you.
BTW, the Greece of Paul's day was a monogamous culture.
Polygamy was not a custom of neither the Greeks who lived in Paul's Greece nor the Romans who ruled Paul's Greece.
Polygamy was a custom of neither the Greeks who lived in Paul's Greece nor the Romans who ruled Paul's Greece.
Polygamy is more suited to the agrarian age than monogamy is: the more hands there are to work a farm the better.
Dignified people, whether they live in an information age or not, do not choose to share their spouse with others.
In any culture where polygamy is pervasive, indolence is the rule and pedophilia is inevitable.
Even societies that are theoretically polygamous - like Islam - are almost wholly monogamous in practice because of the impracticability of polygamy. Even in Islam, only the very wealthy or the very rural are polygamous.
The is the same reasoning used by those who advocate sodomy - that since Jesus never specifically condemned it by name in the Gospels, it is somehow permitted.
Every time Jesus discussed marriage, He discussed it assuming that a marriage exists between one man and one woman.
and also states that Jewish law is not replaced but fulfilled
There is nothing in Jewish law that legislates polygamy excpet for the interesting provision of levirate marriage - which was not compulsory nor even encessary polygamous.
Are Christians required to live by the laws of levirate marriage?
but actually uses the parable of 10 Virgins in a polygamist marriage
The parable has nothing to do with polygamy whatever.
Come now Christ never spoke directly to homosexuality either however He is GOD and did address it in the old testament. You need to quit pulling verses out of context to support your arguments. They are not biblical.
Hmmm...You and my wife need to get together for coffee.
Thats the dumbest argument for polygamy ever.
Those women average 4 kids each. They could have had the same amount of kids if they each had their own husband.
Why not have women have more than one husband? 2 men supporting one woman and all the kids she can pop out?
That would be great!
It had ceased to exist among the Jews by the time of the Second Temple.
In fact, the Jewish law can create a situation where polygamy is the normal required behavior. If you doubt me, read up on when a man must marry his brother's widow.
His choice is either to marry his brother's childless widow or to refuse and be repudiated by her in public.
In practice, the Jews preferred to marry the brother's widow off to an as-yet-unmarried son.
Actual polygamous levirate marriages were probably quite rare, and were usually ended in divorce once they had produced an heir.
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.
Other than that, the Hebrew Scriptures take a pretty negative attitude toward polygamy. It is adduced as a contributing factor to the troubles of King David's monarchy (the Bathsheba incident, the rivalry of David's sons), the cause of Solomon's apostasy and as a source of strife in the home life of the patriarchs.
It is obvious that Jacob did not want to be married to Leah, that Abraham did not want to be married to Hagar who winds up giving issue to the Ishmaelite enemies of the Jews, it is obvious that polygamy was a source of great pain for Hannah, the righteous mother of the prophet Samuel.
Everytime polygamy is discussed in the Hebrew Scriptures it is not valorized.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh, oy! I dropped the "b" in "lesbianism".
Can I just lame it on my keyoard, rothers & sisters?
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.
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.
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.
There can be no better reason than desiring to please God in the way one lives.
>>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 its language. You then dismiss going back to the original source because??? Well you just dont 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!
Lets 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.
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.
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.
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.
>>Because I "like" a translation does not make me intellectually dishonest;
Nope, its 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 couldnt pick me out either (Ill 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.
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.
Stop right there. I'll put my knowledge of the Koine up against yours anyday, so quit the grandstanding.
The parable contains no implication or hint of polygamy in any way, shape or form.
has studied the marriage customs of the 1st Century Jewish traditions
Where and under whom have you studied Jewish marriage customs of the Second Temple period?
Give me a quick explanation of the legal implications of the dziqa if you have.
Otherwise, give it up.
Ask yourself this. What would happen if the brother did not marry?
His sister-in-law would publicly denounce him, remove his footwear and spit at him.
Not exactly the most fearsome punishment in the law.
Study the texts for yourself, read the original Greek. Translate each word and explore the alternative meanings.
Yawn. Way ahead of you.
But thanks for the condescension.
BTW - the proper spelling of the word is "milquetoast."
>>Abraham and Sarah didn't have any children.
Cue Jeopardy Music,
Answer: The mother of Isaac, First wife of Abraham Matriarch of all the tribes of Israel.
Question: Who is Sara in the bible?
>>Then Abraham marries Keturah-AFTER Sarah is dead.
Yep, and then had Concubines
Gen 25:1 THEN again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
Gen 1:5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.
Gen 1:6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.
>>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.
God never said Slavers were good. Stonings, you mean in the Law of Moses?
Gods said these specific polygamists were good while they were married to more than one wife. For me that ends the discussion of whether or not it is a sin.
Legal? Thats a secular Issue, but nope.
Smart? (Not in my book)
Easy? (Not on your life)
You guys just dont get it, polygamy is Biblical, not condemned in either the old or new testament, and is approved of (by God calling some of the most important patriarchs righteous while they were married to more than one woman). So it is not a sin.
Polygamous relationships only work if all of the women involved are bisexual. One man with 20 straight, frigid, brainwashed "wives" is just an abusive personality cult.
LOL! yet you adduce no evidence to prove it.
Jews were practicing polygamy well into the middle ages.
Some Jews who lived under Islamic rule readopted polygamy in the 800s - it was not a practice continued through the ages.
You need to go back and study the allowable reasons for divorce were under Jewish law.
LOL! The reasons for divorce in the Torah are completely vague. In practice the Jews could and did divorce their wives for any reason under the sun.
David's wives were given as a BLESSING FROM GOD.
No, they weren't.
Was Bathsheba truly a blessing from God? Was God pleased with that whole scenario?
No, in point of fact, 2 Sam 12:8 read truthfully in its context refutes your entire argument.
Nathan the prophet is berating David because God has allowed David - despite his sins - to enjoy so many privileges and amenities including his multiple wives.
This passage in no way endorses or blesses polygamy - do you really think that Nathan came to bless David and his deeds in the name of the Lord?
Or did he rather rebuke him and curse him?
I'll pray for you.
I'll pray for you, too. Be blessed.
>>Those men sinned too; hence the sacrifices.
Man O man, so Abraham is now a Sinner to you? (If you mean that in the all have sinned context, point taken, if you mean he was committing a sin (being married to two wives) while God was blessing him, we disagree.)
>>To claim God sanctioned polygamy is crazy.
No, its correct. Abraham was married to two women while being blessed,
Second Samuel Chapter 12
7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 And I gave thee thy masters house, and thy masters wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
Then I am crazy.
>>The ten commandments state clearly that adultery is a sin.
Polygamy - (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Polygamy)
Adultery - (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adultery)
Polygamy is not Adultery.
Words mean things. Rush Limbaugh
>> So having concubines was o.k.?
IF ok means lawful, then Yes they had no law against it.
If you mean moral, then yes for some of the men who practiced this were highly blessed of the lord.
Try this on for size. God commanded Adam to multiply and replenish the earth. That command has never been repealed that I know of. Those who are more righteous keep the commandments to a higher standard, so they multiply more.
(Just for the record, I am not, nor have I ever been in favor of polygamy, but the statements here require that I state the truth that polygamy is biblical, and that Logic supports it, not the polygamy is not Biblical view.)
>> What is the purpose of the commandment against adultery if it was o.k. to have so many wives and concubines?
The purpose of the commandment against Adultery was to keep people from having sex outside of a marriage. (I mean really, you didnt get that?)
Polygamy is a Marriage, just like the first marriage, only you have more than one wife.
Polyandry is a marriage, just like the first marriage only you have more than one husband.
Anti Adultery commandments are a prohibition against Sex outside of a legal union. What is a legal union has changed and now polygamy is illegal. There was no such provision in the Law of Moses, or before.
>>I'll pray for you, too. Be blessed.
I never turn down a sincere offer for someone to pray for me.
Please also Mention to the Lord that I have a son who needs his help (I have been praying for him for 10 years, and he is making great strides, he is autistic.)
May God watch over you.