Replies

Delf, can’t you at least get it straight what I’ve communicated? I Said: You need to realize that perhaps one of the reasons God still blessed Abram despite his adultery is because it occurred prior to his Gen. 17 covenant AND, as is also true of Jacob, both lived in pre-10 Commandments era where God finally specifically addressed adultery.

You responded: I really hate to rain on your rearranging of the Bible, but Abraham becomes polygamous in Gen 16 right before God blesses him in Gen 17 and makes his covenant with him for his righteousness. You have the order mixed up, according to the Bible, it's Polygamy then blessings...

Delf, take another look @ what I said…we both agree to what I said: I said it occurred ”prior to his Gen 17 covenant…”

My point? If you look at the spiritual lives of folks, they do all kinds of things (including adultery) in their pre-covenant years!

Colofornian, didn't you just ask me not to post to you?

(No, I didn’t ask you that at all…more, not keeping my communication straight).

Delf, can’t you understand why a number of posters no longer want to receive posts from you? For one thing, you seem to underestimate the sentiment vs. polygamy. For another, even a century ago (1906) the LDS Church’s hand was finally forced (in defense of its newly elected Senator, Reed Smoot), to ex-communicate two apostles who had taken plural wives in the previous post-Manifesto years. So could you please explain in a nutshell why you continue to defend a practice that if you engaged in would get you ex-communicated from your own church?

As for underestimating the sentiment against polygamy, allow me to review:

1856: The Republican party labels polygamy & slavery as “the twin relics of Barbarism.”

1898: Organizations opposed to polygamy deliver a petition of 7 MILLION names (28 rolls’ long) to appeal to Congress to shut the door on newly elected Utah Congressman Brigham H. Roberts, a Democrat who took a third wife post-Manifesto.

1900s: One LDS missionary writes home that where he is serving, polygamy is deemed the “Monster.”

1904: Another faithful young Mormon, George Q. Morris, said [LDS prophet Joseph F.] Smith’s presentation [to Congress] left Mormonism never so much disliked in its history. (B. Carmon Hardy, A Solemn Covenant, p. 253)

1904: “By this time at least a third of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were new, younger men who, like Smoot, had only one wife and were anxious to acquit the hectored repugation of the church. Presumbably mirroring Senator Smoot’s views, [Smoot’s secretary]…Carl A. Badger told a friend that it was wrong that the entire church should submit to insult and suffering only to protect the reputation of a few.” (A Solemn Covenant, p. 262)

Dec. 8, 1905: Smoot “wired to say that a ‘nasty bitter feeling against the church’ had become almost universal…” (A Solemn Covenant, p. 263)

Throughout 1905-1906: “…public hostility reached such a level that talk was heard of disenfranchising all Mormons, polygamous or not. Both Smoot and Franklin S. Richards said they could not remember a time when ‘the feeling was so strong and so universally opposed to the church as was at the present.’ Smoot also said that whenever he was spoken to on the matter, apostles Taylor and Cowley were always pointed to as examples of Mormon duplicity.” (A Solemn Covenant, p. 261)

One of the hallmarks of God's touch is that he uses imperfect Men like you and me and Joseph and Moses to do his perfect work. [DU]

I’m imperfect, yes indeed. You? What about the command to “Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48) Me? I’m no god-wannabe or what your prophets call a “god in embryo.” Can you make that same claim? You don’t seek exaltation? You mean to tell me there are “imperfect” gods?

Bigamy is not covered under adultery, but both Bigamy and all forms of polygamy are illegal in the USA. Are you confusing Moral and legal? Not everything legal is moral and not everything immoral is Illegal.

Ah, you point out not everything legal is moral…why is this relevant again? Are we talking about anything “legal” here? Is bigamy or polygamy “legal.” (No? Then why waste the time mentioning it?) Oh, but then you jump to not everything immoral is illegal. In your eyes, how does bigamy and polygamy pertain to that again? I mean, from your perspective polygamy IS “moral.” I guess you just had to throw that meaningless phrase in there because it would have been totally eye-opening for posters to see you state what you really believe: Not everything moral (like polygamy) is legal. But, no, you didn’t mention that in your couplet, did you Delf? You stuck to safe points of agreement like “not everything legal is moral” and “not everything immoral is illegal” instead of highlighting what you actually believe: “Not everything moral is legal.”

You could claim that, but you'd be wrong...Ex. 21: 22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Delf, talk about desperate. You give a clear Scripture talking about miscarriage (unintentional death of a preborn) & treat it as if it’s an intentional abortion. (You are sadly spiritually sick, Delf, IF you believe that all women who’ve had miscarriages—or if they’ve had an accident caused by a male close to them that results in a miscarriage—are guilty of intentional abortion!!!)

Femicide is the killing of a woman and is covered under: Ex. 20: 13

Hey, now you’re “stealing” my parallel arguments: Bedding anybody other than your first wife while she is still alive is adultery and is covered under Exodus 20. (There, see how that works? All you’re doing is justifying my parallels)

Words mean things, if adultery and Polygamy meant the same thing, you'd be right. Except they don't mean the same thing, lets actually look at the words:

Pray tell, then, Delf. Please show us all the Old Testament Hebrew word for “polygamy.” (What verses is it in?) Surely you can go to any KJV index and tell me where to find the word “polygamy.” Surely you can go to Joseph Smith’s perfect JST version of the Bible and tell me where Smith “translated” the English word, “polygamy.” (Go ahead, we’re all anxious to see those verses that mentions “polygamy” or “polygamous”…Come on, Delf, as you know “words mean things,” so if adultery and polygamy didn’t mean the same thing, why we’d see that “polygamy” has it’s set-apart word, wouldn’t we?).

In making this argument, you further said: I realize that my position is one that will get me pilloried verbally here, but I am consistent and true in my interpretations of the Bible and I will not deviate from that course tough scorn be heaped upon me from all sides, it is what eh Bible says, it is what many of the fathers of your own churches say, it is the truth and I will not depart from the truth.

What? “Polygamy” is “what the Bible says,” where? What verse uses that word that you sanction with such holiness attached to it?

BTW, so to you, Moses wrote the command not to commit adultery while living in a polygamous and therefore to you adulterous relationship? I'm sorry, but my mental picture of Moses won't allow me to picture that. Moses was a good man when he was God's prophet, and the murder he committed while in Egypt, was in self defense.

Prove it. (Please provide the death date of Moses’ first wife and the marriage date of his next wife)

God uses all men in spite of their sins, but he never calls a man committing a gross sin his Friend, or a man after mine own heart. Yes, David messed up big time later, yes Moses was slow of speech, God called them because they would follow his command, not because they were defying him.

First of all, why do you focus on Moses being slow of speech when I cited he was guilty of “murder.” (So "slow of speech" is the worst moral indictment you can bring yourself to accuse Moses of? Are you being deliberately deceptive in ignoring his murder of an Egyptian, or are you not wanting to face the truth here? (Or, is it that you don’t regard the murder of Egyptians as qualifying under your “gross sin” category?) David, too, was guilty of manslaughter in pursuit of adultery. So that’s not a “gross sin,” as well?—that’s only a “mess up big time?” (Is a “mess up big time” Mormonese for covering up a bigger sin that still keeps their “worthiness” intact?)

Beyond that, so now we have in the person of you Mr. Legalist who is able to classify all sins in a single bounce? So, Peter not confessing Jesus in public—denying him three times—I guess that’s easy for you to classify after the fact that this series of sins was some sort of Mormon misdemeanors, but Judas betraying Jesus was sin of the highest order worthy only of blood atonement, eh?

Or next you’ll tell us that Jonah’s sin of abandoning his mission field was a Mormon misdemeanor, eh? (Boy, wait til your Mission President hears you downplaying that sin!!! It might put your temple recommend at risk!)

God is indeed gracious and merciful, but he is also just. I ask you, can mercy rob justice?

The answer is “yes” at least in the person of Jesus Christ. For mercy robbed Jesus of his very life, and of what sin was he guilty of to be justly put to death? (None, other than our sin). Of course, this is not a complete answer, for we know that in the death of Christ both mercy and justice were equally involved…the justice of holding us accountable was met in the very mercy of Christ. And so justice was indeed satiated.

If you are a spouse, you are not committing adultery.

Are you serious? Let’s say you have a pedophile who preys upon a victim and tells the underaged girl that they will have a (mock) wedding so that it’s “OK” in the eyes of God & man. (And this is a parallel to what this thread is all about!!!) Are you seriously telling us that if this pedophile finds some person who will “solemnize” a (mock) wedding [you have to remember that some LDS unions were solemnized between 1890 and 1910 outdoors with no other witness than the person doing the solemnizing], that the victim is by definition a “spouse?”

You referenced James 2:14-26, but you seemed to deliberately skip in your printing the actual verses James 2:18: SHOW me your faith without deeds, and I will SHOW you my faith by what I do. What does James then do? Well, of course, you deliberately censor what James does. Again you cite the entire passage, but you conveniently leave out spelling out what James 2:21-22 says: Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? (James 2:21-22)

James cites how the example of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son “made perfect” his faith. You seem, Delf, to be claiming that Abraham’s faith was not true faith until he was willing to sacrifice Isaac. But in James 2:23, James is citing Genesis 15:6—which says that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. Who is the Speaker in Gen. 15:6? (God!!!) When did God speak these words? Was it after Abraham had “made perfect” his faith by offering up his son? (How could you even remotely place that kind of timetable into place! God spoke those words before Isaac was even born! Before he was even conceived!!! So, Delf, when are you and all the other Mormons who always try to throw James 2 in the face of Christians going to confess before Almighty God that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness before Abraham did one single thing re: Isaac? (because Isaac was nowhere in sight!!!). Abraham’s offering up of Isaac was a post-faith act. As one author said: It was a fruit and not the root of his faith, thus serving as a visible evidence of his invisible faith.

U Said: Delf, can’t you at least get it straight what I’ve communicated? I Said: You need to realize that perhaps one of the reasons God still blessed Abram despite his adultery is because it occurred prior to his Gen. 17 covenant AND, as is also true of Jacob, both lived in pre-10 Commandments era where God finally specifically addressed adultery.

So, God blessed Abraham for his righteousness because he would be righteous in the future, even though he was committing adultery now, and the adultery was OK because Moses hadn't written the ten commandments yet? (IE according to you, God is changing the rules) Man, I wish I had lived before there were commandments, it would be easy to be righteous!

U Said: You responded: I really hate to rain on your rearranging of the Bible, but Abraham becomes polygamous in Gen 16 right before God blesses him in Gen 17 and makes his covenant with him for his righteousness. You have the order mixed up, according to the Bible, it's Polygamy then blessings...

OK, so now you are saying it's polygamy wasn't a sin yet because God hadn't gotten around to banning it, so Abraham was still righteous? This makes no sense to me. U Said: Delf, take another look @ what I said…we both agree to what I said: I said it occurred ”prior to his Gen 17 covenant…”

My point? If you look at the spiritual lives of folks, they do all kinds of things (including adultery) in their pre-covenant years!

That's a pretty neat escape you are trying to execute there, except God does not say that people are righteous when they convert, that takes a little time. Besides, if this was pre covenant, then why had Abraham (if you are correct, a non believer non covenant person) Promised posterity by the lord (Gen 12), Praying to God at an alter he built, and Promised Children (Gen 13), Paying tithes (Gen 14), Promised offspring (Gen 15), and you are postulating that his polygamy (adultery in your version) in Gen 16 is OK because he hadn't made any covenants to God until Gen 17?

Your logic is ... well not logical.

I Said: Colofornian, didn't you just ask me not to post to you?

U Said: (No, I didn’t ask you that at all…more, not keeping my communication straight).

Well, I thought you were one of those asking me to drop you from my ping list.

U Said: Delf, can’t you understand why a number of posters no longer want to receive posts from you?

Yes, you overestimate how much I care about that. If I was running a popularity contest, I wouldn't be a professing Mormon.

"It wasn't meant for the church to be popular or all hell would want to join us" -- Brigham young.

U Said: For one thing, you seem to underestimate the sentiment vs. polygamy.

I don't care about sentiment, I care about truth, and I am not going to play to the "Crowd" I am perusing truth and nothing but the truth.

IMHO, most people respect that even if they don't admit it, and if they don't, I'll still pursue truth anyway.

U Said: For another, even a century ago (1906) the LDS Church’s hand was finally forced (in defense of its newly elected Senator, Reed Smoot), to ex-communicate two apostles who had taken plural wives in the previous post-Manifesto years.

Any one who polygamously married after the Manifesto absolutely should have been excommunicated, and neither you or I know the relationship to elected senators.

U Said: So could you please explain in a nutshell why you continue to defend a practice that if you engaged in would get you ex-communicated from your own church?

I am not defending the illegal practice of polygamy (it's the 12th article of faith), I am defending the moral and biblical principle of Polygamy. Abortion is specifically condemned in the Bible, yet, it is legal in the United States of America.

Legality is not morality, and I hesitate to call anyone a conservative who thinks they are the same thing.

Understand that I think the perverts in Texas should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Many of the things they did were Immoral, polygamy like prayer and Studying the Bible are not among the things they did that were immoral Polygamy is moral and illegal, abortion is immoral and legal, can I make this more clear?

Most of you know I am a high functioning autistic because it's true and I don't hide it because it's true. Most here know they I am somewhat OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder), so I am standing for a point, that polygamy as far as anyone has been able to actually prove (arguments have been made, but they so far are all flawed) that the Bible actually condemns polygamy, instead, I find unrefuted evidence that God seems to care far more about the Permanency and quality of the relationships in families than the number of female partners.

Prove me wrong Please! Proof, not poor translation, not interpretation, not assumption, prove it, or admit that it can't be proved.

I Said: One of the hallmarks of God's touch is that he uses imperfect Men like you and me and Joseph and Moses to do his perfect work. [DU]

U Said: I’m imperfect, yes indeed. You?

I don't want to take the time to list all my flaws, besides people already complain about the size of my posts, suffice it to say my flaws a many and varied, and I am more aware of some than others, indeed if God told me I would live long enough to deal with all my flaws it would change my investment strategy significantly....

U Said: What about the command to “Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48)

That is one of my favorite topics actually, the Be used is very specific, it is a state of being "be" it is a command to keep the commands, it is not be ye therefore perfected, but "be ye therefore perfect" U Said: Me? I’m no god-wannabe or what your prophets call a “god in embryo.” Can you make that same claim?

Why would you want to be less than God created you to be?

U Said: You don’t seek exaltation?

Of course I seek Exaltation, God has commanded me to.

U Said: You mean to tell me there are “imperfect” gods?

no, if anyone is to become a God, all their imperfections will be swallowed up in Jesus' atonement, they will be perfect from then on and they will become Co-inheritor with Christ.

U Said: Ah, you point out not everything legal is moral…why is this relevant again? Is bigamy or polygamy “legal.” (No? Then why waste the time mentioning it?) Oh, but then you jump to not everything immoral is illegal. In your eyes, how does bigamy and polygamy pertain to that again? I mean, from your perspective polygamy IS “moral.” I guess you just had to throw that meaningless phrase in there because it would have been totally eye-opening for posters to see you state what you really believe: Not everything moral (like polygamy) is legal. But, no, you didn’t mention that in your couplet, did you Delf? You stuck to safe points of agreement like “not everything legal is moral” and “not everything immoral is illegal” instead of highlighting what you actually believe: “Not everything moral is legal.”

I bring it up because it's obvious that some people think that if polygamy is illegal, it's also immoral, and that's logical construct I also refuse!

You spend lots of time in you're dreary block of text telling me what I believe, when it's not what I say I believe, which of us knows better what I believe you or me? Now you could call me a liar, where I will merely say that you are mistaken.

I Said: You could claim that, but you'd be wrong...Ex. 21: 22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

U Said: Delf, talk about desperate. You give a clear Scripture talking about miscarriage (unintentional death of a preborn) & treat it as if it’s an intentional abortion. (You are sadly spiritually sick, Delf, IF you believe that all women who’ve had miscarriages—or if they’ve had an accident caused by a male close to them that results in a miscarriage—are guilty of intentional abortion!!!)

Again you display your fundamental lack of reading skills, this passage has nothing to do with unintentional, spontaneous miscarriages, it talks about men striving with women and causing them to lose the baby being liable for their actions before a judge. I have not and do not believe that a spontaneous miscarriage is equal to a miscarriage caused by a man beating up a woman. I never said any such repugnant thing and your attempt to characterize this scripture as such merely shows the morally bankrupt position you have to hold to post from the perspective that you do.

U Said: Hey, now you’re “stealing” my parallel arguments

Suicide, homicide, matricide, patricide, arkincide, all have one particle in common, cide. Cide means to kill. I referenced a scripture that specifically forbids killing, no parallel argument on my part. The rest of your drivel on this falls apart here.

U Said: Pray tell, then, Delf. Please show us all the Old Testament Hebrew word for “polygamy.” (What verses is it in?) Surely you can go to any KJV index and tell me where to find the word “polygamy.” Surely you can go to Joseph Smith’s perfect JST version of the Bible and tell me where Smith “translated” the English word, “polygamy.” (Go ahead, we’re all anxious to see those verses that mentions “polygamy” or “polygamous”…Come on, Delf, as you know “words mean things,” so if adultery and polygamy didn’t mean the same thing, why we’d see that “polygamy” has it’s set-apart word, wouldn’t we?).

the word is Wife. as in second wife, third wife,then there is also Concubines If marriage is indeed valid in a polygamous state, then it will still be called marriage, not marriages. If you have a one car garage it is called a garage, if you have a two car garage it is still called by the same name, not Garages, polyparking.

Wife is the answer, marriage is the answer, concubine is the answer, all depending on how you are using it.

U Said: In making this argument, you further said: I realize that my position is one that will get me pilloried verbally here, but I am consistent and true in my interpretations of the Bible and I will not deviate from that course tough scorn be heaped upon me from all sides, it is what eh Bible says, it is what many of the fathers of your own churches say, it is the truth and I will not depart from the truth.

What? “Polygamy” is “what the Bible says,” where? What verse uses that word that you sanction with such holiness attached to it?

Have you been ~~listening~~ Reading? the Bible approves of polygamy in several ways. A prophets who are at that moment polygamous are specifically called righteous by God. No one in the bible is ever reproved for polygamy, Bah, truly, there are none so blind as those who will not see. You don't see polygamy in the Bible, but you do see the word Trinity, there may be no help for you.

U Said: Prove it. (Please provide the death date of Moses’ first wife and the marriage date of his next wife) Obviously, we don't have birth, death an marriage dates, however, we can prove they were his wives at the same time from the bible, rather than include all the logic here, I'll just link you to the pro polygamy "Christian" page I got that from: POLYGAMY

I Said: God uses all men in spite of their sins, but he never calls a man committing a gross sin his Friend, or a man after mine own heart. Yes, David messed up big time later, yes Moses was slow of speech, God called them because they would follow his command, not because they were defying him.

U Said: First of all, why do you focus on Moses being slow of speech when I cited he was guilty of “murder.” (So "slow of speech" is the worst moral indictment you can bring yourself to accuse Moses of? Are you being deliberately deceptive in ignoring his murder of an Egyptian, or are you not wanting to face the truth here? (Or, is it that you don’t regard the murder of Egyptians as qualifying under your “gross sin” category?)

Moses tried to save fellow Hebrew who was being beaten, he did not set out to murder the Egyptian, the Egyptian tried to kill him for stopping the beating, then in the fight, the Egyptian died. If Moses had resumed his princely position, and claimed to have killed the man for some slight, it would have been a matter of no consequence, as it was he acted as a Hebrew and fled, that is why the Egyptians called it murder, all they knew was some Hebrew killed am Egyptian. because this is so muddied, I did not use it.

U Said: David, too, was guilty of manslaughter in pursuit of adultery. So that’s not a “gross sin,” as well?—that’s only a “mess up big time?” (Is a “mess up big time” Mormonese for covering up a bigger sin that still keeps their “worthiness” intact?)

Fine, you would prefer Gross sin for which he was damned by Nathan in 2 Samuel? Let's review the Actual scriptures:
2 Sam. 12:7 - 9

7 ¶ And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. 9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

Note that David's sins are Killing an innocent man, and taking his wife, not the Wives David did have (which God said he gave David) and God said if that was not enough he would have given him more, (such and such things...)

U Said: Beyond that, so now we have in the person of you Mr. Legalist who is able to classify all sins in a single bounce?

It's not easy being me, I just make it look that way...

Oh come on! It was a joke!

I don't classify sins, but i can read what God does...

U Said: So, Peter not confessing Jesus in public—denying him three times—I guess that’s easy for you to classify after the fact that this series of sins was some sort of Mormon misdemeanor, but Judas betraying Jesus was sin of the highest order worthy only of blood atonement, eh?

To my mind there is a big difference between lying to save your skin, and lying to kill someone else. I suppose you would felt he need to tell a bank robber who was trying to shoot you that his safety was on? (I could let that bit of honesty slide as I tackled him...)

U Said: Or next you’ll tell us that Jonah’s sin of abandoning his mission field was a Mormon misdemeanor, eh? (Boy, wait til your Mission President hears you downplaying that sin!!! It might put your temple recommend at risk!)

A) I returned many years ago from my mission
B) I never said that, you did, God will judge, not me and as far as I know there is no such thing as a Mormon misdemeanor... (nice consonance though)

I Said: If you are a spouse, you are not committing adultery.

U Said: Are you serious?

Yes.

U Said: Let’s say you have a pedophile who preys upon a victim and tells the underaged girl that they will have a (mock) wedding so that it’s “OK” in the eyes of God & man. (And this is a parallel to what this thread is all about!!!) Are you seriously telling us that if this pedophile finds some person who will “solemnize” a (mock) wedding [you have to remember that some LDS unions were solemnized between 1890 and 1910 outdoors with no other witness than the person doing the solemnizing], that the victim is by definition a “spouse?”

Absolutely not. Any wedding that is illegal will not make adultery, or fornication moral in God's eyes. I have never argued that pedophilia, torture, or any Coercion was moral, I think what these Guys (I will not call them men) did down there in Texas with holding people's heads under water until the agreed, maying girls who were legally unable to marry, and yes committing polygamy were breaking the law, and should be punished according to that law. I think the torture, and marring outside of social norms is immoral, I think anyone who is tricking or forcing people to marry are also immoral. Polygamy when practiced legally means not in the USA right now), by consenting adults, who are not being lascivious, is moral in God's view. I also think there are monogamous marriages where Couples choose not to have children, or the marriage is based on Sex, or where it's the third and fourth times around (divorce) that God is not happy with. You may and probably do have another opinion, and that's fine. but if you want to be able to say that polygamy is immoral because it's un-biblical, you should be able to back that up with something that's actually, clearly in the Bible, and it's just not there.

U Said: James cites how the example of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son “made perfect” his faith. You seem, Delf, to be claiming that Abraham’s faith was not true faith until he was willing to sacrifice Isaac.

I did not say that, I merely posted a passage that talks about Faith and works, you are the one straining at flies here.

U Said: But in James 2:23, James is citing Genesis 15:6—which says that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness.

Several places in Genesis God says Abraham is righteous, want a list?

U Said: Who is the Speaker in Gen. 15:6? (God!!!) When did God speak these words?

Which time?

U Said: Was it after Abraham had “made perfect” his faith by offering up his son?
B That is one place...

U Said: (How could you even remotely place that kind of timetable into place! God spoke those words before Isaac was even born! Before he was even conceived!!!

I would agree that God probably also said it before Abraham was born, (that preexistance We Mormons talk about) so yep, then too.

U Said: So, Delf, when are you and all the other Mormons who always try to throw James 2 in the face of Christians going to confess before Almighty God that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness before Abraham did one single thing re: Isaac? (because Isaac was nowhere in sight!!!).

So you are saying works have no effect on righteousness that it's created with us or not and that we have no choice?

Are you a Calvinist?

I will never confess that man has no choice for God commands us to choose all the time, and God will not command men to that which they cannot do.

U Said: Abraham’s offering up of Isaac was a post-faith act.

It was an act of Faith made perfect by Abraham's work in doing it.

U Said: As one author said: It was a fruit and not the root of his faith, thus serving as a visible evidence of his invisible faith.

So, does a man produce fruit but once? (no) The first fruit is simple, but when actions (work) reinforce faith, the next action (work) is greater than the first, because the faith has grown also. Works and faith can form a positive feed back loop that leads one upwards to God.

Simply put polygamy is Biblical. There is no credible evidence to the contrary.

The Guys in Texas were perverts, sadists pedophiles and law breakers of many stripes I hope they are punished according tot eh fullest extent of the law. Including for breaking the laws against polygamy.