Now du, it was explained quite clearly with all the other passages I cited in the synoptics. Clearly in Jesus' teaching, divorce is only valid in one condition. If other divorces are invalid (hint - they are still married in the eyes of God) in regards to marriage, then any second wife is an adulterous relationship because there is a pre-existing marriage.
Now try real hard du to apply some common sense. Jesus states if a monogamous marriage is in effect, any additonal marriages are 'adultery'. Not a hard concept to grasp - unless you like to grasp at straws. Thus from ALL the passages - marriage is one man to one woman (and vice versa), any more is adultery.
So in your opinion, Jesus is saying if a man gets a divorce and then remarries is the same as staying married and getting married again...
I know having to actually think can be hard for some. Jesus is saying there is only one valid justification for a divorce (ie breaking the marriage bond - see Mt 19:6). Absent that - in God's eyes they are still married. After all du(h) the definition of adultery is sex outside of the bonds of legal marriage. Polygamy by any other name.
You do know that a lot of people now days get divorced and remarried who would never think of just staying married and adding a wife, right? (Just checking)
The perverted sense of our society today is not God's standard now is it Du.
So, they and I disagree with you that there is no difference. I wold say that Jesus is saying, if you can't keep the first wife, you don'r deserve a second one. Hey, i know as long as we are adding to the Bible, maybe we should just say that Jesus thinks... Wait we're not supposed to add to the Bible are we... I just don't see the word polygamy in there, because it's not in there.
It is sooooo funny to watch you squirm and squiggle to get out of a jam du. What you or they 'believe' external to the scripture doesn't count for squat. But adding to the bible is just what mormons like to do anyway now isn't it.
So, were the Indians Breaking the Law when they had more than one Squaw? if so what law?
If they were under federal jurisdiction at the time - most likely, dependent upon the LAW and treaty with the tribes. But hey, we are not talking about lamanites here du - we are talking about an American citizen and THOSE laws he engraved into mormon doctrine that mormons were REQUIRED to follow the law of the land.
The city of Nauvoo was allowed by it's charter to supersede the laws of the state if it so desired. Nauvoo had no law against polygamy.
That is a myth and a false representation. The charter states quite clearly that no law may be established that violated the state or national consitution. Furthermore, if there WERE no law prohibiting polygamy in Nauvoo, why did smith get his temple undies in such a knot when his polygamy was exposed by the Expositor? Double facepalm on that interpretation Du.
There was no "law" for Joseph to break, he died before the Federal law was passed. You could argue that what he did was immoral, but appeals to the Bible have not worked out well for you in the past either.
Wrong again Du - he was also in voilation of state laws as well. Smith's polygamous marriages occurred in Illinois in the early 1840s. The Illinois Anti-bigamy Law enacted February 12th, 1833 clearly stated that polygamy was illegal. It reads:
"Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred."
Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99
And John Taylor, the third president of the church, claimed that he believed in keeping all the laws of the United States "except one"--i.e., "The law in relation to polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, page 317)
Getting tired of digging your self in deeper du?
When bring'em young moved the clan to Utah, it was still part of mexican territory - which outlawed polygamy at that time. When it became a US territory, US common laws in 1850 also outlawed polygamy.
DU, even church publications, doctrines and manuals admit that polygamy was illegal.
The Book of Commandments contained the following statement: "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the CRIME of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." (Section C1, 251)(see also History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 247). This section was in every single edition until 1876, when the D & C first included section 132 justifying plural marriage
"The law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow one man to have more than one wife alive at once." (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 715, November 15, 1844.)
You've said you are still 'learning' - now is another time to admit you still have a lot of learning to go du.