Replies

Anyone who cares, Matthew 5:31-32 KJV has Jesus condemning Divorce and calling remarriage of the divorced adultery.
Now, Godzilla, you big prehistoric lizard, post a similar scripture where Jesus condemns polygamy as adultery. I double dog dare you!

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.

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