More than one loyal friend or associate alerted me to this thread, and it has inspired me to re-engage to some degree on these forums.
I left a year ago for reasons explained elsewhere that have absolutely nothing to do with what, after reading every post in this thread, appears to have been the inspiration for
@nathan's
Statement of Focus for Biblical Families post. Technically, it's probably unsurprising to note that, in any Torah-Keeper/non-Torah-Keeper dialectic, I certainly started out in this organization as a non-Torah-Keeper, but, very early on, the repeated skirmishes between the two camps dismayed me enough that I devoted a significant amount of my energy here to focusing on diminishing such riffs. Especially since my departure and subsequent spiritually-profitable shift over to Truth Social, X, Rumble and Substack, I have come to the perspective of interpreting our relationship to God/Yah and Jesus/Yeshua/Christ to indicate that any man who truly embraces patriarchy, much less any man who likewise embraces
scriptural polygyny, is inescapably and to a
significant degree a Torah Keeper -- not necessarily in the intellectual framework typically insisted upon during Hatfield & McCoys TKvNTK debates, but certainly to the extent that every aspect of the foundational underpinnings of both patriarchy and polygyny is sourced from the Pentateuch in general and from Torah in particular. I can't, for example, cite one instance in which Jesus or Paul addresses the general subject of marriage without referring back to the Tanakh to one degree or another -- and most frequently to Torah. So, I've come to refer to myself as an Isaiah 1 Torah Keeper rather than feeling compelled to slot myself into one side or the other of the Law/Grace Kerfuffel.
I respect the dual intentions of (a) decreasing unnecessary, misplaced vitriol between Torah Keepers and Grace Only factions, and (b) returning focus to P&P: Patriarchy and Polygyny.
Before I post elsewhere, though, it's only fair to address a couple potential elephants in the room:
- For those keeping score, yes, this is not completely congruent with my statements in the 'Exit Interview' about what it would take to inspire me to return to biblicalfamilies.org. However, in the months immediately following my departure from these forums, I learned a great many things about this organization, and one salient dynamic is that Samuel is not the problem and only has delegated authority, so I'm not here to put any further effort into challenging his role here.
- Nor am I returning to challenge the fact that I'm no longer permitted to attend in-person gatherings. Just as with any privately-owned organization, the owners have no obligation to welcome anyone in particular into their midst.
I'm here instead because some people near and dear to my heart alerted me to Biblical Families' published intention to reinvigorate the primacy of promoting patriarchy and polygyny, because among those who
asked me to return was one in particular to whom I owe great debts of gratitude, and because I'm taking
@nathan and whomever helped him draw up this most recent
Statement of Focus for Biblical Families at his/their word.
Period.
By the time I post this, I will have caught up on all posts in
this thread and will then move on to do so with a select handful of others. Patriarchy and polygyny are important to me -- enough to take them incredibly seriously -- so I am grateful for this platform, but P&P aren't all that drives me in life, so I will probably be more discriminating about what I share here this time around, saving my other content for more free-spirited venues that worry less about imaginary potential threats than the real ones already literally staring us down. In private, you may ask me anything, but you're also welcome to engage with me on other topics by seeking me out on X (@nuclearheart169) or on Truth Social (@169KevinSamuelsOldHippieGodson).
And I'll close this post with a few comments related to the posts contained in these five pages:
- This has never been and never will be a 'free speech' platform, nor is it required to be. As such, being restricted from saying whatever one wants is simply not censorship, because censorship directly implies governmental restriction of freedom of expression. As members of this organization, each of us 'serves' at the pleasure of the owners. We can want what we want, but that doesn't translate into meaning we're entitled to get what we want. Furthermore, in the realm of speech restrictions, I applaud putting a governor on the throttle when it comes to divisive theological/denominational rhetoric, because such conflict will only distract us from confronting truly destructive organizational insufficiencies.
- I always love the Pauline 'milk' and 'meat' distinctions and remain available to help craft further implementation of those distinctions in a way that would foster 'meat' debates while providing material elsewhere that won't scare away the skittish. I must confess I remain puzzled about the 'BibFam' nickname that began to emerge and replace 'BF' just about the time I was leaving last year; it makes me cringe a bit when I hear it, but perhaps it could be put to good use as a moniker for the Milk Zone, given that one who's still drinking milk instead of eating meat would be the most likely to actually be wearing a bib. I know a guy who knows a girl who knows a guy who could design a really rad logo for a BibFam Milk Zone . . .
- Steve's 'old joke' about prison jokes was perfectly placed in this thread. And, by the way, the joke itself goes by '13'. I anticipate, though, that I'm about to learn that I'm in that Can't-Tell-a-Good-One category . . .
I look forward to resuming relationships.
babylonbee.com
www.biblicalfamilies.org
, your visualization of BibFam is going to be hard to unsee, but I don’t perceive another nickname that can replace it.