Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Interview With Polygamist Winston Blackmore
CNN ^ | December 8, 2006 | Larry King Live

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?

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.

"

(Excerpt) Read more at transcripts.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: mormon; polygamy; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-86 last
To: DelphiUser
So Abraham was committing adultery whenever he slept with his concubines.

A concubine is not a wife. That would be adultery.

Hagar was no blessing to Abraham. She was given to him by Sarah because Sarah thought she was too old to have a child. She doubted God. The Arabs are the punishment for that sin. No blessing there.

And frankly I don't put much stock into what Nathan said. Anyone can say anything and claim it came from God.
51 posted on 12/14/2006 5:56:12 AM PST by JRochelle (Duncan Hunter 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: DelphiUser; JRochelle
DU, Abraham's polygamy is an extremely poor case study if you are arguing for divine approval of polygamy.

God gave Abraham assurance that he would have many descendants.

Yet Abraham and Sarah did not have faith in this assurance and the taking of Hagar as a concubine was an act of doubt in God's providence.

The issue of the concubinage with Hagar was a curse to Abraham, Ishmael and his descendants were persecutors of his true heirs and are to this very day.

Scripture shows that Abraham's polygamy was an utter and enduring disaster.

52 posted on 12/14/2006 6:54:04 AM PST by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle
And frankly I don't put much stock into what Nathan said.

You ought to. His words are part of the Scripture and his prophecy was the prophecy of God.

However, his words are far from an endorsement of polygamy.

Basically, Nathan says that God is saying: "Look David, I gave you all kinds of things - authority, kingship, victories, lands, wives, anything you could have wanted. But you killed loyal Uriah and took his wife for yourself. You've gone too far and I'm punishing you. I'm going to kill your son."

This is hardly a pro-polygamy peptalk. It does no reference plygamy in any positive way.

53 posted on 12/14/2006 6:58:20 AM PST by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
As for proof I thought the subject so well established that you would be able to do your own research. Since you did not, I will provide a starting point.

While there is no evidence of a polyandrous state in primitive Jewish society, polygamy seems to have been a well-established institution, dating from the most ancient times and extending to modern days. The Law indeed regulated and limited this usage; and the prophets and the scribes looked upon it with disfavor. Still all had to recognize its existence, and not until late was it completely abolished. At no time, however, was it practiced so much among the Israelites as among other nations; and the tendency in Jewish social life was always toward MONOGAMY.

The Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. "Polygamy," Vol. X, pages 120-122 available at http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=425&letter=P&search=polygamy

Further evidence can be found in Some Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews (particularly those from Yemen and Iran, where polygamy is a social norm) who discontinued polygamy much more recently, and the State of Israel had to make provisions for polygamous families immigrating after its 1948 creation, though new polygamous marriages are forbidden in Israel. Once again showing that polygamy was common enough to need to be addressed in law in the modern world.

At issue is not that polygamy is the norm ... rather the question as original posed, is it a Christian (and through subsequent debate, Jewish) practice. Jews have been and continue to practice polygamy. No it is not common, no it is not custom, but non the less, it is practiced.

No scripture ever states that having more than one wife is a sin. It falls into that area of actions that make it difficult to keep ones hart on God. Like the story of the rich man who asked Jesus what must he do to have riches in heaven. When Jesus told him to sell everything and follow him, he was showing that the man's hart was not on God but rather his wealth. Likewise, a polygamist is choosing a much harder road to follow. But it is not impossible for a wealthy man to be saved just more difficult.

As for the divorce issue, you are correct, the Talmud allows for divorce for just about any reason and thus, many Jews throughout history have practiced "serial polygamy" - Divorcing one woman to marry another. I postulate that the permissive divorce law created and currently supports this state of serial polygamy and is still practiced in the Jewish (and Christian) community today.

The passage reads:
Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.'

The following points are made in the passage:
1) The Lord God is making the following statement
2) God anointed David King of Israel
3) God then recites his blessings
- delivery from the hands of Saul
- gave him his masters house
- gave him his masters wives into his arms (sexual relations)
- gave him the house of Judea and Israel
4) God then says that had this not been enough, he would have given him even more
5) Then God asks why David turned away from God and did evil
- killing Uriah and taking his wife
- the evil God chastens David with is NOT POLYGAMY
- the evil God accuses is murder, lust, greed, marrying a Hittite (against Jewish law), and perhaps worse, despising God
54 posted on 12/14/2006 7:23:59 AM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

Thank you, and I will pray for you as well.


55 posted on 12/14/2006 7:24:44 AM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle

>>So Abraham was committing adultery whenever he slept with his concubines.

No, a Concubine had the status of a wife, just not the right to inherit.

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

The meaning of the word concubine has changed over the centuries, back then it had this meaning:

2. In certain societies, such as imperial China, a woman contracted to a man as a secondary wife, often having few legal rights and low social status.

See the word wife in there? I do.

>> A concubine is not a wife. That would be adultery.

See above, you are incorrectly applying the word from today’s use to scriptures written in another era. When the word meant something else. Abraham was not an adulterer.

>> Hagar was no blessing to Abraham.

I disagree.

>> The Arabs are the punishment for that sin.

Got Scripture?

No?

Got Speculation = Got Nothing.

>> And frankly I don't put much stock into what Nathan said.

2 Sam 12: 1 AND the LORD sent Nathan unto David….

Um he was a prophet… Why do you read the Bible? Do you realize that it was written by these guys who were prophets?

>> Anyone can say anything and claim it came from God.

Um, yes, there are even people who think they are God, those whose writings are accepted cannon of Christian churches more than 2000 years later, however are a much smaller group.

As for me, I’m gonna go with the bible on this one, wait! That’s what this whole discussion is about! You are saying the bible does not support Polygamy, by ignoring parts of the bible and saying “And frankly I don't put much stock into what” you might as well end with “the bible says” here.

>> Anyone can say anything and claim it came from God.

Get thee behind me Satan! There is just so many ways I could play with this statement, but most involve me claiming to have revelation from God and my pursuit of humor breaks off where I would have to gross the line of Blasphemy.


56 posted on 12/14/2006 8:07:00 AM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

>>DU, Abraham's polygamy is an extremely poor case study if you are arguing for divine approval of polygamy.

OK, then logically disprove it.
Also disprove Jacob’s
Also disprove David’s (before Bathsheba)
I’ve got more, just not as famous.

>>God gave Abraham assurance that he would have many descendants.

Yes he did, and it was because Abraham was very righteous, not because he was going to become an adulterer.

>>Yet Abraham and Sarah did not have faith in this assurance and the taking of
>>Hagar as a concubine was an act of doubt in God's providence.

Got Scripture?

No?

Got Speculation = Got Nothing.

>>The issue of the concubinage with Hagar was a curse to Abraham,
>>Ishmael and his descendants were persecutors of his true heirs and
>>are to this very day.

Persecution is not a curse, quite often it keeps the persecuted on the path God intends for them.

>>Scripture shows that Abraham's polygamy was an utter and enduring disaster.

We seem to have problem here with the confusion of Opinion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion) and Fact (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fact). Many on this forum continually state their opinion as fact. I understand this proclivity as the Media today does this all the time. However, it does not become us, and it does not make for polite and rational discussions (however it can be fun to attack with logic, and I am having fun on this thread!)


57 posted on 12/14/2006 8:33:27 AM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: DelphiUser
I have.

You have to prove your implied thesis: that everything God permits is what He desires most for His children.

That is disproven, since Jesus instructs us that His Father permitted divorce under the law of Moses because of man's weakness.

Is the capacity to divorce a blessing that God desires and encourages?

No.

It is a concession He had made to man's sin-flawed nature.

Abraham took a concubine because he was impatient with God's promise of descendants.

Jacob took concubines because he was immorally deceived into marrying his first wife and the rest because of infertility.

David took multiple wives ebcause Saul had multiple wives, and given the nature of Saul's ascendancy in Israel, repudiation of any of Saul's wives would be a repudiation of the alliances forged through those marriages that kept Israel a unified nation.

BTW, there is no Scriptural evidence that Bathsheba was a Hittite. She had a Hebrew name and so did her father. And of course, David's own great-grandmother was a non-Israelite Moabite married to an Israelite - and that Moabite-marrying Israelite was indeed blessed by being made the forefather of the King of Israel and of the Messiah.

Got Scripture?

It has been cited. Isaac the heir was born to Sarah as God promised. There was no need to look beyond Sarah for the son of the promise, but Abraham did anyway.

You say he did so because of some special blessing to be found in polygamy.

there is no Scriptural evidence for this.

What we do see here is what we see here continually throughout Scripture: God being exceedingly good, and ungrateful men not appreciating their blessings but reaching for more.

Persecution is not a curse

LOL! What a bizarre statement.

We seem to have problem here with the confusion of Opinion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion) and Fact (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fact). Many on this forum continually state their opinion as fact. I understand this proclivity as the Media today does this all the time. However, it does not become us, and it does not make for polite and rational discussions (however it can be fun to attack with logic, and I am having fun on this thread!)

Congratulations on the most condescendingly egomaniacal paragraph i've read on FR in some time.

58 posted on 12/14/2006 10:47:11 AM PST by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Bushwacker777
"...if a man has 4 wives maybe he and two of the wives work outside the home and two could take care of all the children."

Hell, I can't handle the ONE that I have. Why in the heck would anybody (in their right mind, of course) want 3 more?!!!

BTW, I'm pretty certain she feels the same about me. ;-)

59 posted on 12/14/2006 10:53:12 AM PST by Hatteras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
"Late" - not until after the Second Temple period.

As I said in my post, the practice of polygamy which had been abandoned for centuries was revived in the Islamic period as a way of fitting in.

No scripture ever states that having more than one wife is a sin.

It's clear that polygamy - like divorce - was a concession made to man's weakness in the preMessianic period, not a sin but not a laudable practice either.

Not only does Jesus describe marriage as being between a man and a woman, but he sets aside divorce as a no-longer-acceptable concession to man's weakness.

The New Testament, whenever it discusses marriage, assumes monogamy as the underlying standard.

Christians have never practiced polygamy and never accepted it as permissible.

For a Christian to permit it or engage in it would be a complete repudiation of the highest historical standards of Christian behavior as practiced from the apostolic age down to this.

60 posted on 12/14/2006 10:56:31 AM PST by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Bushwacker777

bump for later


61 posted on 12/14/2006 11:03:59 AM PST by Centurion2000 (If the Romans had nukes, Carthage would still be glowing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

>>I have.

You have what? Oh ok I’ll go see which of my posts you are replying to. (hint when replying to a questions, include the question)

The questions I believe you are replying to is “OK, then logically disprove it.”

Syllogism Go look it up (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Syllogism)

The Syllogism works like this

Major term: God approves of Abraham (God says so, several places and over time).
Minor term: Abraham was polygamous, before during and after God says this
Conclusion: God approves of Polygamy.

I never said “If God allows it, it is approved”, that is your own construct.

>>You have to prove your implied thesis: that everything God permits is what He desires most for His children.

That is NOT what I said, if I had said what you think I said, then I would be wrong this is precisely why you need to look up what people say, not what they are said to have said.

My logical construct stands, unless you disagree with it’s specific points (the Major and the Minor terms)

>>That is disproven, since Jesus instructs us that His Father permitted divorce under the law of Moses because of man's weakness.

Let me say this in really small words.

Divorce is not polygamy.

>>Abraham took a concubine because he was impatient with God's promise of descendants.

You have proof of this? Please source this currently unsubstantiated statement or stop making it.

>>Jacob took concubines because he was immorally deceived into marrying his first wife and the rest because of infertility.

So we can make excuses to God as to why we committed our sins? (This is a ludicrous argument, either it’s a sin or not) I can see it now, but God, my wife was really ugly, and my secretary was really cute… (Anybody think God is going to buy that line?)

>>David took multiple wives because Saul had multiple wives, and given the nature of Saul's ascendancy in Israel, repudiation of any of Saul's wives would be a repudiation of the alliances forged through those marriages that kept Israel a unified nation.
And this government was set up by? Prophets at the request of the people.

Any one want to guess what God’s response would be if a group of people wanted God to make fornication with the same sex legal? (Remember Sodom and Gomorra?)

BTW, there is no Scriptural evidence that Bathsheba was a Hittite. She had a Hebrew name and so did her father. And of course, David's own great-grandmother was a non-Israelite Moabite married to an Israelite - and that Moabite-marrying Israelite was indeed blessed by being made the forefather of the King of Israel and of the Messiah.

>>>>Got Scripture?

It has been cited. Isaac the heir was born to Sarah as God promised.

And this has no bearing as to what people were thinking, and to the status of Wives and Concubines

There was no need to look beyond Sarah for the son of the promise, but Abraham did anyway.

And God did not say he was sinning and even blessed him after this “Sin “ in your eyes and commended him for his righteousness, he was given the title “the Friend of God” for Pete’s sake!

>>You say he did so because of some special blessing to be found in polygamy.

I never said that.

>>there is no Scriptural evidence for this.

That would be why I did not say that.

Persecution is not a curse
LOL! What a bizarre statement.

How many places do the “Righteous get persecuted? How often does that bring therm back to God when they are straying?

Congratulations on the most condescendingly egomaniacal paragraph I’ve read on FR in some time.

Why thank you, I worked hard on it. Now I suppose I will have to beat my own record as the records we set are the only ones worth exceeding.


62 posted on 12/14/2006 12:07:42 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
It's clear that polygamy - like divorce - was a concession made to man's weakness in the preMessianic period, not a sin but not a laudable practice either.

I will agree with that statement.

Christians have never practiced polygamy and never accepted it as permissible

A very broad statement that would require a fairly narrow definition of what is "Christian" in order to remain true. I site the Anababtists of Munster in 1534 and later in 1650 when war and famine had decimated the population, bigamy was permitted for a period of 10 years. And we all know about the Mormon history. Even today there exists a Christian based polygamy movement.

Personally, I don't see how a man can live up to his biblical obligations to be the provider and head of the house and support two houses (much less the volume of wives and children as are sometimes reported) on less than say $150,000. Not a whole lot of people in that salary range today.
63 posted on 12/14/2006 12:24:30 PM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: DelphiUser
"a woman contracted to a man as a secondary wife, often having few legal rights and low social status."


Ah, I have figured you out. You are either a Mormon like the guy the post is about or you tend to think of women as property.
In fact a lot of the men in the OT tended to treat women as property.

BTW, you tend to put so much stock in the OT, and discount the NT and the teachings of Jesus. Whatever trips your trigger.
64 posted on 12/14/2006 12:32:19 PM PST by JRochelle (Duncan Hunter 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

>>It's clear that polygamy - like divorce - was a concession made to man's
>>weakness in the preMessianic period, not a sin but not a laudable practice either.

Please cite the scripture where this is stated.

>>Not only does Jesus describe marriage as being between a man and a woman, but
>>he sets aside divorce as a no-longer-acceptable concession to man's weakness.

Yes, the marriage covenant was taken one man and one woman at a time even when one man is marrying more than one woman in total. (I guess also when one woman is marrying more than one man, but that’s a little out of scope for this discussion.)

>>The New Testament, whenever it discusses marriage, assumes monogamy as the underlying standard.

The underlying standard, yes, the only righteous one? That is an assumption that cannot be proved with the current scriptures, and gets even less likely as one goes back to the original language.

>>Christians have never practiced polygamy and never accepted it as permissible.

This is not true.

>>For a Christian to permit it or engage in it would be a complete repudiation of the highest historical standards of Christian behavior as practiced from the apostolic age down to this.

Let’s have some fun with this, shall we?

So, why are nuns referred to as Brides of Christ?

How many wives does Jesus get to have? (or get stuck with depending on your point of view)

Why are priests celibate? (I know a great joke about the missing “R”, but not now)

Why was it OK for a mountain man to marry a white woman, and several Indian squas?

Why was monogamy only adopted after the bulk of Christians were no longer of the tribes of Israel?

Why is there no scripture that clearly states “Polygamy Bad” as there are with so many other things?

Why did many of the patriarchs of the Old Testament have more than one wife?

Why was it accepted?

These patriarchs were obedient in so many things to assume that they were law breakers in this one is inconsistent.

Is it the Bible that is saying this, or are is the Bible being interpreted?

Please understand that I am doing this mostly for fun, but also because I believe your position is illogical and not in agreement with the Bible as written.

I believe the case for Monogamy being “the norm” that is expected can be made from the Bible, I believe that polygamy is also an acceptable variant of marriage to God. I believe God is more concerned about how we treat our wives (or wife) and Children than how many of them there are. I believe God also cares more that we stay within the bounds of Matrimony than how many wives we commit to. But this is just my opinion; see I know the difference between my opinion and fact.

I believe that man who lives in harmony, respect and love with more than one wife is closer to heaven than a man who lives with only one and beats and curses her.

I intend to live in peace, harmony and love with my one wife, and that is good enough for me.


65 posted on 12/14/2006 12:37:20 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
Sometimes it is hard to distinguish what is Paul's words and what was added in later.

Let me guess. The stuff added in is the stuff that doesn't fit your beliefs.

66 posted on 12/14/2006 12:39:01 PM PST by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

It may be Jewish but it isn't Christian.


67 posted on 12/14/2006 12:43:03 PM PST by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Bushwacker777
Q: What's the penalty for bigamy?
A: Two mothers-in-law.
68 posted on 12/14/2006 12:44:31 PM PST by steve-b (It's hard to be religious when certain people don't get struck by lightning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DelphiUser
I believe that polygamy is also an acceptable variant of marriage to God.

Are you LDS?

69 posted on 12/14/2006 12:45:29 PM PST by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle

>>Ah, I have figured you out.

Please explain me to my wife as she never has "figured me out".

>>You are either a Mormon like the guy the post is about or you tend to think of women as property.

I have never hidden the fact that I am a Mormon. However this gentleman (and I am being kind) is not. Mormons do not practice polygamy, you would be excommunicated faster than you could say “oops”.

As for the “women as property”, nope never owned any. (grin) My wife however might shock you. She thinks that (and I am NOT saying this, she did) women should never have gotten the vote. She thinks that modern Liberalism would never have existed if the fairer sex was not voting. This could spawn a whole series of threads as polls are re-evaluated, etc.

>> In fact a lot of the men in the OT tended to treat women as property.

There are many cultural differences of how women are and were treated, I spent some time in Taiwan (a mission) and was shocked at how the women were treated there.

I did note that the enforcers of female subjugation were other women, the men just accepted it, and took advantage of it.

>> BTW, you tend to put so much stock in the OT, and discount the NT and the teachings of Jesus. Whatever trips your trigger.

The New Testament has to be examined in the context of the old as that was the culture Jesus and all the disciples grew up in. I also assume that God in the Old Testament is still God in the new, and I heard somewhere that he was unchanging, so…

I don’t mind having my trigger tripped, as long as I don’t go off half cocked.


70 posted on 12/14/2006 12:51:47 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

>>>>Sometimes it is hard to distinguish what is Paul's words and what was added in later.
>>Let me guess. The stuff added in is the stuff that doesn't fit your beliefs.

LOL, aint it the truth!


71 posted on 12/14/2006 12:52:58 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

>>Are you LDS?

Yes, what demonination do you adhere to?


72 posted on 12/14/2006 12:54:08 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: DelphiUser

Methodist. You are one of the few LDS folks I have met who will discuss polygamy.


73 posted on 12/14/2006 12:55:02 PM PST by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

>>Methodist.

My parents were Methodists before they joined, I have lots of relatives over there, Good upstanding group too. (I also have some Calvinists; they are all fun to talk to about religion)

>>You are one of the few LDS folks I have met who will discuss polygamy.

Why thank you. I believe if you are a true believer, nothing about your religion scares you. (Having grown up in the buckle of the Bible belt, Iowa, I got a lot of persecution by school mates, so I have heard almost everything) I am never afraid of an honest discussion, or an honest question. I have fun with the "When did you stop beating your wife" questions (like before we met, Grin) and love to learn about all religion.

Thank you for being so polite, it’s a rare commodity these days and according to the laws of economics should be more highly valued than it is.


74 posted on 12/14/2006 1:02:04 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: DelphiUser
Good upstanding group too

I hope you don't mean the Methodists. The UMC as a whole is apostate. There are some refuges here and there.

The LDS has to wrestle with the original church teachings vs the revised church teachings vs the modern church teachings. Polygamy may have been an early belief but it works only as a last resort. It got the numbers up anyway. But the smartest thing they ever did was throw polygamy under the bus. It's a nightmare for a society where the number of women and men are equal. What ya'll do in the Celestial Kingdom is your own affair.

75 posted on 12/14/2006 1:14:04 PM PST by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: DelphiUser

So how do you defend your beliefs that polygamy was ok, even though Jesus taught against it?

Is it because Joe Smith practiced it, so it had to be ok with God?
What about the fact that he sent men off and then married their wives? Isn't that like what David did with Bathsheba?


76 posted on 12/14/2006 1:16:31 PM PST by JRochelle (Duncan Hunter 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

>>>>Good upstanding group too

>>I hope you don't mean the Methodists. The UMC as a whole is apostate.
>>There are some refuges here and there.

I meant my Extended family, they are the bulk of the Methodists I know.

>>The LDS has to wrestle with the original church teachings vs the revised
>>church teachings vs the modern church teachings.

I have no problem with it, Jesus came and fulfilled the law of Moses (so I can have a ham sandwich) God tells you when to and when to stop doing something. It’s that simple.

Polygamy may have been an early belief but it works only as a last resort.

There are a lot fo reasons for polygamy, and a lot of reasons against. I personally am happy I don’t have to make that decision.


77 posted on 12/14/2006 1:44:43 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle

>>So how do you defend your beliefs that polygamy was ok, even though Jesus taught against it?

I don’t defend my beliefs, I don’t have to, but I do answer questions (grin see what I said about having fun?)

Q: even though Jesus taught against it? (polygamy)

A He never did teach against polygamy. Your opinion is no more binding on me than my beliefs are on you.

Is it because Joe Smith practiced it, so it had to be ok with God?

First, his name is Joseph Smith, please have the courtesy to spell things completely, familiar terms are for those who are familiar with the person they are being used for.

Have you ever said a prayer?

Did you get an answer?

If you went on an internet forum and someone told you your answer (to your prayer, from God) was a lie, while acting in an ignorant and bigoted manner, how much credence would you give them?

I am being kind to you, and you don’t even know it. (sad really)

>>What about the fact that he sent men off and then married their wives?

Fact: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fact) Something has to be true to be a fact, this is not a fact.


I have researched this accusation extensively and it cannot be proven because of the number of documents that have been forged and passed off as historically accurate by enemies of the church. (do some research on Mark Hoffman http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mark+hoffman I recommend wikipedia as it has a fairly accurate history, Mark the best known because he started blowing things up)

There are even accounts by women of the period who never met Joseph Smith about how they were his wife in some way.

Were their problems with Polygamy? Certainly. Were they because Men did not live up to the commandments they were given? Certainly? Were people trying to do anything lewd and lascivious? I sure there people were and are, but I believe my church leaders are separate from that particular group.

Isn't that like what David did with Bathsheba?

A: Who died? Murder is an unpardonable sin, bigamy, adultery, theft, even sodomy are all forgivable. (not that I am admitting your accusation, I reject it, but your comparison is not apt.)


78 posted on 12/14/2006 2:12:00 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: DelphiUser
You don't give up, do you?

AAAHHH!

I have seen it spelled either way, Joe or Joseph; I didn't know it was offensive. Sorry.

To me polygamy is just a way of men getting all the sex they want, with a variety of women. Men are born with the desire to do such things. Its one of their vices. Women tend to not be created in the same manner. They have vices too mind you. Just different.
79 posted on 12/14/2006 5:18:42 PM PST by JRochelle (Duncan Hunter 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle

>> You don't give up, do you?

I also don’t give out, and I don’t give in.

>> AAAHHH!

I have that effect on a lot of people, Grin.

>> I have seen it spelled either way, Joe or Joseph; I didn't know it was offensive. Sorry.

I have seen a lot of people try to make fun, they always spell it Joe. IF no offense was meant, none taken, it is Joseph though.

>> To me polygamy is just a way of men getting all the sex they want, with a variety of women

Are you a woman then? Your page says “Nothing to see here.“ and it is accurate. I know some women who have grown up in polygamous families, they can’t see it any other way, and the guy typically doesn’t seem to get “More” if you know what I mean. When one wife gets mad, they all get mad. How would it be to be kicked out of four beds at once? Then, they all tend to get “In synch” so that is still a problem, Plus four(4) honey do lists? I’m very happy with just one wife, thank you.

>> Men are born with the desire to do such things.

From a logical perspective, without physical intimacy why would any man want to get married?

>> Its one of their vices.

Actually, since I agree the desire for physical intimacy is a constant with guys, God must have designed it that way.

I mean this seriously, men think in straight lines you tell us a problem, we tell you our solution.

Women think in curves and arcs. They want to tell you their problem, in excruciating detail, they want you to agree that it’s terrible and bring up other episodes to wallow in emotionally, but don’t you dare try to solve the problem!

Then there’s the does X make me look Y questions. Look, we guys are fashion and style challenged, that’s why we take you with us to buy a suit, remember? So asking our opinion on clothing sounds to us (after the first couple of times) like “Hey, you, Wanna fight?”

Guys are simple, not stupid, not feeling less, just simple. Women are complicated. There is only one reason we would commit (initially) to putting up with all that “Stuff” and if that goes away, well there goes the human race.

>> Women tend to not be created in the same manner.

Thank the lord! You are also tempting me to tell several jokes, I will do my best to refrain.

>> They have vices too mind you.

Agreed.

BTW, I am a male chauvinist pig. My wife likes me that way, and woe be to anyone who tries to make her step down from the pillar I have so loving placed her on. Her every wish is my command, and I worship the ground she walks on while opening doors and holding coats, carrying anything that looks heavy and slaying any dragon foolish enough to get in her way. So, before anyone tries to tell me how abominable I am behaving toward my wife, my wife and I like this relationship, just consider it a “lifestyle choice”, and don’t waste your breath.


80 posted on 12/14/2006 7:45:45 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Bushwacker777
Other than marriage should be between a man and a woman

"Many women with ambition and high IQs have to choose between career and family (at least they think they do) and maybe this sort of family model could solve that problem"


Or he could just father eighty children with twenty women and pay child support. But think about it, How does one man financially support all those children? It's financially draining. The wives all have to work anyway. A group of single mothers could get together and do the same thing. This doesn't solve anything.

Also this the type of family system you would want to build a country on?

Another issue with polygamous sects is the competition for eligible women. It causes allot of problems. The woman to man population ratio is 1:1, when you exclude the fact that elderly women live longer than men. As competition for wives increases, boys are often cast out of the community.
81 posted on 01/02/2007 5:39:21 AM PST by LauraleeBraswell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton



If Polygomy is fine then what do you think about gay marriage?


82 posted on 01/02/2007 5:40:09 AM PST by LauraleeBraswell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton

"Most American men are polygamists. Only they do it one wife at a time."

Actually no. The divorce rate is so high because of serial divorcees. Most couples who get married stay married. If a man marries and divorces twice, that's two divorces compared with a couple who stays married (0 divorces).


83 posted on 01/02/2007 5:41:58 AM PST by LauraleeBraswell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol; wideawake
In a hostile world where invading tribes could attack at any time polygamy was a way to protect your people, preserve your culture and boost population. And because many men were killed in wars and many women died in childbirth, it was necessary if you wanted many descendent's to carry on.

Different World.
84 posted on 01/02/2007 5:45:31 AM PST by LauraleeBraswell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell

ok. The point remains though. a very large percentage of American men practice the next to worst form of polygamy. A smaller, but large, proportion of men practice the worst form, impregnating multiple women while never assuming any responsibility whatsoever.

BYW: It is only ilegal because of a document. It' interesting that a man could cohabitate with 100 women if he chose and have children with all of them, quite legally, as long as he didn;t try to marry them.


85 posted on 01/02/2007 10:41:22 AM PST by Mark Felton ("Wisdom is supreme...and though it cost all you have, get understanding" -- Proverbs 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell

Legal "marriage" is a government program to give traditional families an advantage, children and spouses, in the tax and legal system. It forms a contract and is designed to encourage and boost traditional families because they are beneficial (essential) to society.

We have all kinds of government programs that engage in social engineering for "targeted" members of our society.

Marriage should remain exclusively for traditional families (2 parents (opposite sex), with or wihout children)

Homosexual couples should never recieve marriage status. They are destructive to society.

Homosexual couples are free to cohabitate. They can establish living wills for each other (to assign medical decision responsibilities). They can write wills to pass on assets. They do recieve equal treatment under the laws.

They do not need the "procreation promotion program" (marriage). it is ludicrous and also a good example of the tyranny of the anti-Christians that this ever became a consideration.


86 posted on 01/02/2007 10:49:04 AM PST by Mark Felton ("Wisdom is supreme...and though it cost all you have, get understanding" -- Proverbs 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-86 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson