Replies

Now du, it was explained quite clearly with all the other passages I cited in the synoptics.

There is a Huge difference between quoting scripture, and interpreting scripture. You are doing the latter.

Your "hints" are you interpreting scripture to mean what you want it to say.

2 Peter 1:20

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Now try real hard du to apply some common sense.

Now try real hard and stick to the scriptures when you try to tell me what God thinks because Truly, you can't read his mind.

Jesus never said that the first marriage was in force. Tell me Godzilla, is it Adultery to have sex if neither person has been married? (Don't quibble about fornication)

if all sex outside of marriage is adultery your analogy falls apart right there.

You go on for a while about breaking marriage bonds, which I am not saying Polygamy is doing, in fact it does not.

The perverted sense of our society today is not God's standard now is it Du.

Agreed, thus modern law cannot be used to bolster scripture and scripture must stand on it's own as the moral authority.

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.

It is funny to watch you accuse me of what you are doing (it's called projection) I don't CARE about polygamy, I don't intend to have more than one wife. You do care, because if polygamy is biblical, you just lost a Cause célèbre for condemning Joseph Smith.

Jesus never mentions polygamy, not once. He condemns divorce and anyone who remarries is committing polygamy. Period end of story the Catholics have this one absolutely right in theory, in practice, well we all know the Kennedy's seem to get annulments years and grown children later... But that is another discussion

Polygamy was specifically authorized several times in the bible and never condemned except for twisted "personal" interpretations.

I asked if the Indians were breaking the law by having more than one squaw, and what law that would be...

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.

Did I say what time period? I could have a lot of fun here, but that is not my purpose. So Indians are under federal jurisdiction for marriage? LOL! Why do you think they don't pay taxes? Why can't states collect sales tax on all those cigarrets? Because they are granted a similar charter to the charter Nauvoo was granted. They don't grant those anymore, but the state law did not apply to Nauvoo and there was no federal law. so it was not "Illegal". No matter how you twist, the truth just won't bend.

As for the Nauvoo expositor, polygamy was not the only thing they were saying, today such a rag would be sued out of existence almost as fast as the city council ordered it destroyed in that day.

The Nauvoo expositor is a red herring anyway, it has no bearing on the Biblical legitimacy of Polygamy, and actually, Neither does Illinois law.

You keep reminding me of the cartoon character who steps from one rake to another getting smacked over and over.

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.

Bigamy, simply put is having more than one legally married spouse.

I believe it was you who argued on another thread that they were not legal marriages and went on to show that no marriage license was procures so the marriages were not recognized outside of Nauvoo. You guys can't have it both ways, either they were legal marriages, or they weren't. Did Nauvoo have the jurisdiction to marry people or did it not? If it did, then it had jurisdiction, if it did not then the marriages were not legal and since no children of Joseph's exist from any wife but Emma, you'll have a hard tome proving carnal relations were happening.

Then for the next rake, the JOD discourse (in volume 20 no less) is well after Joseph was martyred and the Exodus from Nauvoo. So it has no bearing on the happenings in Nauvoo.

Getting tired of digging your self in deeper du?

Nope, enjoying watching you step back and forth between the rakes.

So, marriages in Nauvoo, which had a charter that allowed them to enact and enforce their own laws not with standing, the temple marriages for which there were no offspring and no marriage certificate are evidence to you that Joseph was a bad man.

I'm going to quote to you from a site that will surprise you, Light Planet an anti Mormon site has a copy of the Nauvoo city charter. here is a quotation:

One important provision stated that the Nauvoo Council could pass any ordinances not repugnant to the constitutions of the United States or that of Illinois. This, in effect, empowered the Nauvoo body to stand in a federated position with the Illinois General Assembly. Ordinances passed by the Nauvoo Council could be in direct violation or disregard of state law and still be valid in Nauvoo, provided they did not conflict with specific powers granted by the federal and state constitutions. Leaders of the city militia, known as the Nauvoo Legion, and the university trustees could also pass laws, limited only by state and federal constitutions.

There was no constitutional amendment prohibiting polygamy. There still is no constitutional amendment that prohibits polygamy.

Nauvoo had the right to have polygamous marriages, and even bigamous ones if it wanted . and all you r pouting and bleating about bigamy laws that weren't enacted until later and quotations from people in Utah won't change the FACT that Joseph smith did not break any laws against having more than one wife.

All your bleating and interpreting won't change the FACT that Jesus never condemned polygamy, only Divorce.

all your simpering and whimpering won't change the FACT that Polygamy was approved of by God in the Bible, and the additional FACT that God does not change, therefore if he approved of it often in the Bible, it's not going to be a sin now.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -- John Adams

The facts are against you, you keep quoting things that are out of time for attacking Joseph, the Bible does not agree with your interpretation, and you keep inserting things and then accusing me of doing so. Again, you lost... again.

Polygamy is Biblical, this is a fact.

Denying facts is insanity.

Delph

There is a Huge difference between quoting scripture, and interpreting scripture. You are doing the latter.

Lurkers will note - common deflection technique. common sense reading of the passages is all that is required and the doctrine contained in them becomes apparent - contrary to mormon apologists who want to force a contrary interpretation on them.

2 Peter 1:20 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Again, lurkers will note a verse cherry picked from the bible. What Du won't tell you about this passage is that mormonism claims to be the exclusive authority to interpret scripture. Again, Du is contexturally challenged in this respect. Verse 19 speaks of the fact that we have received the “sure word of prophecy.” This establishes the idea that this passage is referring to the “prophetic” portions of “Scripture” as they are contained in the Old Testament (i.e, the writings of Daniel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc). It is to these prophetic books that Peter is referring when he addressed the "prophecy of the scripture" at verse 20.

Verse 21 explains how this “word of prophecy” “…came not…by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” This verse explains what Peter meant when he said that “no prophecy of Scripture” is of any “private interpretation.” He is speaking about the origin of the “prophecy” —explaining how it came into being by the Holy Ghost and not by any one individual’s “private interpretation” of what he thought the “prophecy” should say.

It is evident by the context of this passage that 2 Peter 1:20 is not condemning the diligent, careful analysis of God’s Word which leads to accurate, exegetical interpretation of Scripture, but is rather speaking of the origin of the prophetic passages as not being of any “private interpretation.”

But then, what else would you expect from a mormon 'seminary' graduate.

Jesus never said that the first marriage was in force.

LOL, that is one of the lamest claims I've seen from you lately Du - and you've made a lot of lame claims.

Mat 19:9 KJV - And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. First look at the surrounding context. The 'divorce' itself isn't adultery - it is the illegitmate marriage (and sex with) another that constitutes adultery.

Adultery to have sex if neither person has been married? (Don't quibble about fornication) if all sex outside of marriage is adultery your analogy falls apart right there.

Oh now I spoke too soon - this is the lamest statment (wow - twofer). In this specific passage, the greek word for adultery is "moichaō" which by DEFINITION is "to have unlawful intercourse with another's wife". Therefore, in the eyes of God that 'divorce' is invalid and God still sees them as man and wife - so if either under the conditions of 'divorce' it is adultery.

Now you want to quibble about the term "fornication" adultery is used with fornication - as with a prostitute.

You go on for a while about breaking marriage bonds, which I am not saying Polygamy is doing, in fact it does not.

Wrong again Du. As Mt 19 clearly states, and go back an re-read the greek definition of adultery at that verse - If there is a pre-existing marriage, any additional marriage. Instead of my definition of adultery failing - it is YOUR definition of polygamy that fails. Jesus' point is that improper divorce does not nullify a marriage, and if the first marriage still stands, then a "second" marriage is adultery--and NOT simply 'polygamy'! This is very clear.

And from the preceeding verse (Mt 19:6) God does not accept divorce as valid, thus any man who divorces his wife (or vice versa) is not really divorced, and if he/she marries someone else, he commits adultery.

What is clear is not only did smith violate this clear command from Jesus - he also screwed up existing marriages by other women to their current husbands.

I don't CARE about polygamy, I don't intend to have more than one wife. You do care, because if polygamy is biblical, you just lost a Cause célèbre for condemning Joseph Smith.

If you don't care - you sure waste a lot of time defending it. Do you view D&C 132 that poorly Du? Would you join your other brethern is polygamy was legalized like homosexuality? But smith not only violated biblical principles and laws, he violated civil law (obeying the law was cannonized mormon doctrine) as well as violating church doctrine (infact people were excom'd for polygamy/adultery while smith was shacking up with his wives).

Jesus never mentions polygamy, not once. He condemns divorce and anyone who remarries is committing polygamy.

You should have stopped while you were ahead Du (three lame statement). What did Jesus say - Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: He doesn't commit 'polygamy' du, Jesus said he commits ADULTERY. Jesus couldn't put the cookies down any lower for you Du. Perhaps you should take the time to READ the passage before uttering such nonsense

I asked if the Indians . . .

Is just a red herring DU. The degree to which US law recognized any degree of polygamy among the indians during that time frame via treatys is not the issue. Smith was not a lamanite now was he.

As for the Nauvoo expositor, polygamy was not the only thing they were saying, today such a rag would be sued out of existence almost as fast as the city council ordered it destroyed in that day.

Right, not only did it expose smith's practice of polygamy, it exposed his polytheistic doctrines, as well as challenging him on his other doctrines. Not too unlike what we 'antis' are doing here - and not unlike the great whinning being made by mormons to that same effect. And an illegal destruction that was. BTW, a lot of "rags" are still in print today - that pesky thing to TBMs called the 1st amendment and all.

The Nauvoo expositor is a red herring anyway, it has no bearing on the Biblical legitimacy of Polygamy, and actually, Neither does Illinois law.

LOL, still digging in deeper DU. If polygamy was as legal in Nauvoo as you claim - the charge of polygamy in the expositor should not have generated the hate it did now would it. In fact it would not have even been an issue worth addressing in the first place.

But Illinois law - well du, ignore the laws at your own risk. It becomes apparent that following AoF #12 is not a fundamental belief of mormonism then, is it. Mormons can violate any law they want to - after all, that is 'civil law'.

But smith still violated God's Law did he not? The 1835 edition of the "Doctrine and Covenants," which was the official scriptures at the time, specifically prohibited the practice of polygamy: Doctrine and Covenants Section 101, Verse 4 (1835 edition)-
"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 that in the event of death when either is at liberty to marry again."

Bigamy, simply put is having more than one legally married spouse.

My goodness Du, more lame and stupid statements. First, bigamy is a subset of polygamy, which under Illinois law was being 'married' to more than one man or woman. If you cannot be married LEGALLY to more than one spouse - then any other spouse is ILLEGAL (no wonder lds church is having trouble with illegal aliens).

I believe it was you who argued on another thread that they were not legal marriages and went on to show that no marriage license was procures so the marriages were not recognized outside of Nauvoo.

That was not my arguement - do your research better.

I'm going to quote to you from a site that will surprise you

Sorry, no surprise here DU - except for you poor reading comprehension and understanding of the citation. You forgot to also bold - provided they did not conflict with specific powers granted by the federal and state constitutions. What is even more lame is you make the next statement -

There was no constitutional amendment prohibiting polygamy. There still is no constitutional amendment that prohibits polygamy.

Dear DU, are you that constitutionally challenged? You arguement is invalid on so many levels it is pitiful.

1. There was no ordinance passed by the Nauvoo council LEGALIZING polygamy on the books. Since there was no such ordinance, by law (and your interpretation of the charter) state laws covering marriage would be in effect - laws which outlawed having more than one spouse.

2. By claiming there is no constitutional amendment prohibiting polygamy you also fail to note that all federal and state laws are bound by their respective constitution. Hence, we have a court system to challenge the legality of those laws and render a constitution decision on them. Laws against polygamy are still in effect today in spite of legal challenges to them - thus they meet the constitutional challenge and polygamy finds no shelter in the constitution.

Nauvoo had the right to have polygamous marriages, and even bigamous ones if it wanted .

Again, show me the actual ordinances passed that legalized polygamy/bigamy in Nauvoo. In absence of such ordiances, they were under the laws of the state which DID outlaw those marriages.

. . . won't change the FACT that Joseph smith did not break any laws against having more than one wife.

Sad, sad Du, once again, Illinois made such marriages illegal - and that is a FACT you can bank on. He also broke the law and doctrine of his own church. and never forget, smith had the services of his own abortionist available to him at all times.

All your bleating and interpreting won't change the FACT that Jesus never condemned polygamy, only Divorce.

And Jesus in correctly condemning divorce made it clear that God only recognizes one man being married to one woman (and vice versa) and that being married to more than one is adultery.

all your simpering and whimpering won't change the FACT that Polygamy was approved of by God in the Bible, and the additional FACT that God does not change, therefore if he approved of it often in the Bible, it's not going to be a sin now.

Jesus corrected the religious caste in Mt 19. God never APPROVED of polygamy, but he tolerated it because of the hardness of mens hearts, for Jesus correctly spoke that it was one man and one woman that were to be joined as one. God only made one man and one woman for the garden (not a harem).

However, being a 'sin' now - ROTFLAICGU - this coming from mormonism that does EVERYTHING in its power to distance itself from its brethern in the FLDS - HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, oh that is choice Du. Apparently YOUR church sees polygamy as a sin TODAY, hahahahaha. Oh my, my sides are hurting now from laughing.

The facts are against you, you keep quoting things that are out of time for attacking Joseph, the Bible does not agree with your interpretation, and you keep inserting things and then accusing me of doing so.

Lurkers will note, a vain and lame attempt to recover some semblence of dignity for an abyssmyally poor presentation. With this in mind, remember smith married wives that were at the same time married to another man. And since GOD never changes as Du bleats loudly and jumping up and down here, what does GOD say about this -

Ex. 20: 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

Deut. 5: 21 Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

Again, smith violated his own doctrines marrying others wives -

Mosiah 13: 24 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.

D&C 19:24-25 I am Jesus Christ; I came by the will of the Father, and I do his will. And again, I command thee that thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife;

Attack smith - LOL, smith displayed his fruits by flagrantly violating the commandments of an UNCHANGING GOD. It is no wonder one of his favorite phrases was 'fruit of his loins'? Consider also the following

- Married numerous women - at least 33 women, perhaps as many as 60.
- Married girls as young as 14.
- Married women that were already married to other men.
- Married his own foster children.
- Broke the law by practicing polygamy and encouraged others to do the same.
- Threatened young girls to marry him and promised exaltation to parents of young girls that gave their permission to Joseph to marry their daughters.
- Lied continually in public and to fellow church members about practicing polygamy.
- Had other church members lie about his polygamy.
- Married women without telling his wife Emma first and even having pretend second marriages later to cover for his deceptions.
- Destroyed a printing press that printed newspapers exposing his polygamy - ultimately landing Joseph in jail leading to his murder.

Lurkers - are these the actions of a prophet of God? Some may say he was only human - but note - smith claimed GOD told him to do it!! It is the mark of a false prophet, not a true one.

Du would like you to take the word of just one man - smith. No other prophet really claimed that God visited them or sent angels to confirm the practice of plural marriage. If smith was mistaken, deluded, deceived by Satan in the form of an angel or lying to cover up his affair, then the entire practice of polygamy was a terrible, unnecessary hardship on untold thousands of people.

Is there is anyone out there reading this that can honestly say that they get a good, warm, spiritual feeling that God commanded smith to marry other men's wives and 14 year-old girls and to lie about it all his life? Did this come from God or man - perhaps this might provide insight -

"Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake." - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, First Counselor to Brigham Young, The Lion of the Lord, New York, 1969, pp 129-130.