ALL: Note a few things that can be derived from this Mormon poster in just 13 words uttered:
1. He says "probably Isaac as well" because he likely knows (it's been pointed out before to him on FR) that Isaac's alleged "polygamy" status is NOWHERE to be found in the Bible...and it's solely based upon Joseph Smith erroneously saying so in Lds "scripture" -- Doctrine & Covenants 132:37...which Joseph Smith singlely wrote to convince his first wife, Emma, that all these extra lovers was dictated to him by his Mormon gods. (And yes, Smith uses "gods" plural in that very "revelation"...see vv. 19-20)
So what's QUITE telling here is that even Teppe the supposedly faithful Mormon doesn't take Joseph Smith at face value anymore! Here, D&C132:37 clearly tosses Isaac into the polygamy ring...and Teppe can only conclude it was a "probable" thing.
You see, Joseph Smith did& said so many unbelievable/disbelievable things that even the faithful wain!
2. The Book of Mormon uses anachronisms...for example, "church" is "ecclesia" ... Greek... and is found in the New Testament, written in Greek. Jesus first used that term in Matthew 18. But the Book of Mormon frequently uses the word in its alleged B.C. books.
Well, likewise, Teppe uses "Christianity" -- which essentially assumes a New Testament-timed Christ who came incarnated...and then says its founders were all Old Testament figures. (Go figure)
Then, if you take a look at the next 19 words by Teppe -- they too are of special interest: "You should probably find another religion. Obviously, God does not look at polygamy in the same way you do."
Why?
3. If you go to this thread, LDS.ORG Essay on Nauvoo Polygamy: What did Readers Expect? [LDS apologist on church admissions] -- and click on the original link written by a Mormon apologist from FAIR...Lds' foremost apologetics group...you will find Brian Hales saying:
"In lauding the Church’s effort to explain this difficult topic, some may assume that in defending the essay we are in fact defending polygamy. We are not. On earth, polygamy expands a man’s sexual and emotional opportunities as a husband as it simultaneously fragments a woman’s sexual and emotional opportunities as a wife. The practice is difficult to defend as anything but unfair and at times emotionally cruel...The essay explains that plural marriage was “an excruciating ordeal” for Emma...
So here the Mormon apologists are out there conceding polygamy is...
..."an excruciating ordeal" (note the word "excruciating" is tied to the word "crucifix")
..."unfair"
..."emotionally cruel"
...and then...on top of that...
...Hale adds:
"...some may assume that in defending the essay we are in fact defending polygamy. We are not."
Well, Brian...when you have Mormons like Teppe making comments like he does in this & other threads (& he's far from being the ONLY Mormon doing that)...
Or Living Prophet® Number Two!