Q. Could you please summarise in just a few words the major and minor differences between your [HEM] Ministry and the other three large ones at BFree, TruthBearer (TB) and Patriarchy Website (PW)?
Before I answer that question, I want to stress that we at HEM (formerly FICP and FECPP) are in broad agreement with almost everything that these other ministries represent as far as general Christian/Messianic Polygamy and Patriarchy are concerned. It must also be remembered that some of these ministries (like Truth Bearer - TB) are inter-denominational and therefore represent a wide range of of theological opinion, whereas the other two were churches (assemblies) in their own right (both are now - in 2016 - defunct). Making 'comparisons' is not always therefore easy or even very helpful. For the sake of giving an answer I will focus on what I believe to be some key areas of difference.
A. Key Differences
I have to say from the outset that I am not an expert in all these other ministries as between them they have had (some now taken down off the net) an enormous corpus of written materials and that some of their positions have changed over time. If their positions have changed I would appreciate some feedback so that I do not misrepresent them here. All of HEM's positions are represented in detail in other articles.
(1) BETROTHAL. It is the position of HEM and Servants of Yahweh (now defunct and most definitely apostate, its Kenyan founder rejecting the New Testament) that Bethrothal is True Marriage and legally binding in Yahweh's eyes for life. The position of TB is that a marriage does not become a true, binding marriage until it has been sexually consummated. This may well be the position of BFree (defunct) and PW (defunct) though I am not sure. As far as HEM and Servants of Yahweh are concerned, the evidence scripturally and historically is overwhelmingly in favour of our position. HEM does, however, make a distinction between modern 'engagement' and biblical Betrothal and does not regard 'engagement' as binding. No couple can be bound by a covenant if they are not aware of what that covenant is and implies. Using TB and BFree logic, if an elderly or disabled couple covenant to marry but are unable to consummate it because of age or disability, they are not technically married, a position we regard as preposterous and fleshy.
(2) MARRIED SISTERS. It is the position of HEM, Zulluwth (now defunct) and others that the Torah permits a man to marry two sisters polygamously provided there is no rivalry between the two. The position of TB, BFree (also latterly, GFM - God's Free Men and finally GFMW - God's Free Men & Women, now completely reorganised as Tsiyon Radio) and possibly some others is that marrying two sisters is ungodly under all circumstances.
(3) LOVE NOT FORCE. It is the position of HEM and TB that no monogamously-married woman who has entered monogamy-only covenants with her husband may be forced into polygamy against her will until she releases her husband from that mutual covenant of her own free will and without undue rpessure. The position of BFree was that such a covenant is null-and-void since it is ungodly. Where HEM may differ with TB is that it does not consider such covenants to be absolutely inviolate under all circumstances where a higher law may be invoked. Thus the oath of Japheth to sacrifice his own daughter we would consider null and void in view of the higher commandment not to murder.
These are probably the three major areas of difference though possibly other ministries might consider what are for us 'minor' differences to be major ones.
B. Secondary Differences
I can conceive how, for example, HEM's belief in Eternal Marriage (not the Mormon variety) might be be considered a key difference by other ministries. Certainly BFree/GFMW regarded this as a 'key' issue but not TB which is committed to trans-denominationalism. Similarly, our belief in a Female Holy Spirit might perhaps be considered a key difference by others though by no means all as this teaching becomes more popular in light of the evidence that the original New Testament was written in Hebrew/Aramaic which is categorical (in harmony with the Old Testament) is declaring the Holy Spirit to be female. As this challenges the Trinity doctrine, which has always maintained a male Holy Spirit, some might even regard this as a 'cardinal' difference.
PW was a Pentecostal ministry and acknowledged tongues along with Zulluwth. Though TB is ministerially neutral about this, its founder, along with the former BFree/GFMW and FICP, do not accept tongues. The same differences exist over the Sabbath. As far as I know, PW is not Sabbatarian like HEM, BFree, Servants of Yahweh, The Christian Patriarchs (Australia) (present - 2016 - status unknown) and the TB founder. HEM is fully Messianic Israelite and Torah-observant which is similar to the former Messianic Judaism of Malkut Yahweh Avodah (which became Solomon's Porch Ministries) with whom HEM once had the closest doctrinal affinity, Miqra Messianic (now - 2016 - associated with Moshe Koniuchowsky's messianic polygamy-accepting Your Arms to Israel organisation), and the former BFree/GFMW which is probably the most extreme in this.
HEM and the former PW share a close affinity over Female Ministry which very few of the other ministries accept, ordianing women to the ministry. HEM is different from PW, however, in admitting women to different ministerial positions, i.e. men and women are ordained to separate though partially overlapping ministries.
There are bound to me numerous other minor differences between the ministries that are not really worth mentioning here. These, in my view, are the key differences plus a few secondary ones which might be 'key' to some of the others.
Finally, where HEM is unique with regard to all the others, and which it alone presently addresses, is the mystical or cosmic approach to polygamy which we regard as more than a mere human marriage practice. Perhaps that is the biggest key difference between HEM and all of the rest ...