Polygamy = Adultery

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Locked
User avatar
tmac
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4526
Location: Reality

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by tmac »

So, in the modern era, under BY, while polygamy was fully accepted and not against the law in the Territory of Utah, you guys are saying that my 30 something great-grandfather was automatically committing adultery with his widowed 50-something MIL, and that, as they were all just struggling to survive, he was obviously looking on her in her ragged prairie dress to lust after her, so that they could have sex in the wagon box, surrounded by other family? Is that what you’re saying?

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15309
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

tmac wrote: January 31st, 2023, 8:49 am So, in the modern era, under BY, while polygamy was fully accepted and not against the law in the Territory of Utah, you guys are saying that my 30 something great-grandfather was automatically committing adultery with his widowed 50-something MIL, and that, as they were all just struggling to survive, he was obviously looking on her in her ragged prairie dress to lust after her, so that they could have sex in the wagon box, surrounded by other family? Is that what you’re saying?
You're deflecting the blame on who promulgated this "damn-fooled doctrine." Was your GGF deceived? Yes, yes he was. Could he have cared for his MIL in other ways? Certainly, he could have.

User avatar
tmac
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4526
Location: Reality

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by tmac »

But the question, according to this thread — particularly where there is zero evidence that they ever had any intimate physical relations — is whether they were committing adultery just because they were practicing plural marriage? Because that is what you are saying.

And that’s fine. You’re completely entitled to that view, and paradigm. But just don’t pretend that you are speaking for God. Otherwise, echo-on.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15309
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

tmac wrote: January 31st, 2023, 8:58 am But the question, according to this thread — particularly where there is zero evidence that they ever had any intimate physical relations — is whether they were committing adultery just because they were practicing plural marriage? Because that is what you are saying.

And that’s fine. You’re completely entitled to that view, and paradigm. But just don’t pretend that you are speaking for God. Otherwise, echo-on.
As far as your family, I don't have enough details to know anything about them. You've brought in a side discussion that has little relation to the topic of the essay. Polygamy was wrong as lived by the early LDS saints. If you don't know whether they had sex, then I sure as heck don't know... nor do I really care TBH.

Also, never once have I ever suggested that I have spoken for God. You keep strumming along as well my friend.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure you've brought this up before with your ancestors, with a very similar rebuttal to "echo-on."
Last edited by Reluctant Watchman on January 31st, 2023, 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
tmac
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4526
Location: Reality

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by tmac »

Fair enough. Your position is very clear. You believe polygamy almost always equals adultery. What is a whole lot less clear, and in fact highly doubtful, is whether God agrees with you? But I’m just asking practical, less purely theoretical questions, and I don’t pretend to speak for God, or that He necessarily agrees with me. Just practical food for thought.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Shawn Henry »

Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:31 pm Deuteronomy 21
10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
Luke, use a little discernment and honestly look at whether those are the Lord's words.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15309
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

tmac wrote: January 31st, 2023, 9:37 am Fair enough. Your position is very clear. You believe polygamy almost always equals adultery. What is a whole lot less clear, and in fact highly doubtful, is whether God agrees with you? But I’m just asking practical, less purely theoretical questions, and I don’t pretend to speak for God, or that He necessarily agrees with me. Just practical food for thought.
I feel Jacob agrees with me. I've clearly presented my stance on position on the matter in this thread. Contrary to many, I do believe that various dispensational heads were given strict commands. There is also some context/instances where Jewish tradition allowed for a brother to raise up seed unto his deceased brother, but it was never considered an eternal union.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Shawn Henry »

Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:12 pm My main problem with your argument is that men and women just aren’t equal, and there’s no point trying to argue that they are. The Scriptures are unequivocal on this, and so was the Prophet Joseph Smith.
This is just insane, I can't believe you actually believe this. Women aren't equal to men, so it's okay that they are sexual war trophies with no say in the matter.

The idea that we believe the Bible only as far as it is translated correctly has just never entered your mind, has it? Scribes can throw in all sorts of garbage, and you just suck it right up as if Joseph should have never uttered those words.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Sarah »

tmac wrote: January 31st, 2023, 8:04 am Polygamy equals Adultery seems like a straight-forward proposition for those with a very simple, black and white perspective.

But let’s add a little more dimension and reason to the equation and see how it looks. First of all, what is the definition of adultery? Even under current LDS frameworks (which are about as anti plural marriage as it gets), sex between legally and lawfully married spouses is not adultery. So, in those cultures where polygamy is fully accepted and there is no law against it, is it adultery? How? Why?

Many of the Native American tribes practiced polygyny. Were they committing adultery? There is the interesting case of Comanche chief Nacona and Cynthia Parker, a white woman who had been abducted by the Comanches when she was very young and fully assimilated to Comanche life to the point that when she had the opportunity she chose her Comanche upbringing over her White heritage, and ended up dying of heartbreak when her white liberators separated her from her husband, sons, and “people.”

But in accordance with Comanche custom, chief Peta Nacona had eventually taken Cynthia, as a plural wife, and they had children (including Quanah Parker), and she loved her husband and Comanche way of life.

Was it adultery?

And what of the many, many Mormon women in the pioneer era (including one of my great grandmothers, when she was in her 50s, with grown children, but her husband died, so the husband of one of her grown daughters also married her, and took care of her the rest of her life) who were taken as plural wives purely for the purpose of taking care of them, and it is highly unlikely that there were ever any intimate physical relations involved. In the case of my family, my great-grandfather was in his 30s, with two younger wives when he also married one’s widowed mother, who was in her 50s. Was it adultery? Do you really think that he did it just so he could have more sex with a woman almost twice his age, even as they were all just fighting for survival, as they made their way across the plains, and settled in the West?

But your proposition seems to be that in God’s eyes Polygamy always equals Adultery, whereas that doesn’t even hold water through the eyes of well-reasoned mortal perspective, let alone God’s perspective.

But, like I said before, Echo-on.
Some of your examples may not be adultery in the legal sense, and the Lord will judge us all according to our understanding. I think that in the spirit of the law of chastity and of marriage, any time a man intentionally elevates himself at the expense of his wife (or the wife does so), by taking another spouse, out of feelings of entitlement/selfishness, with no intention of allowing his wife the same privilege, then that in my opinion is adulterating the marriage and is spiritual adultery in the eyes of the Lord. It's similar to how someone can make a legal covenant with God to love, worship, and obey him. Legally one has a "covenant" relationship, but is he/she actually keeping the covenant?

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Shawn Henry »

JLHPROF wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:19 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: January 30th, 2023, 1:40 pm If the Nephites were trying to justify themselves by citing their forefathers, why wouldn't they use the most respected of their forefathers as the example? Of course, they would have if given the option. Their Brass Plates simply did not allow them to cite Abraham and Jacob, which is a far more correct version of the Old Testament than what we have.

Did Abraham sacrifice his firstborn only son or did he offer up his second born son?
Second. But his birthright heir nonetheless.
But then the symbology to Christ is no longer there.

User avatar
tmac
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4526
Location: Reality

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by tmac »

Single-dimensional, one-size-fits-all thinking is alive and well.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Shawn Henry »

JLHPROF wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:31 pm I don't know why it's so hard to put Jacob 2 in a little context.
Plain English doesn't need context. If I tell you to turn left at Washington Street, would you ask me to clarify what is meant by turning left?

The English shows a categorical condemnation.

Are we really suppose to believe that 500 wives was the abomination, but 50 is when it is God's law? As if the number is the issue. Do you really think the Nephites amassed the same number of wives as David and Soloman or is it much more likely that they had one or two extra? I highly doubt a single Nephite has more than 10. The context clearly condemns the practice, not the number of wives.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15309
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

tmac wrote: January 31st, 2023, 10:11 am Single-dimensional, one-size-fits-all thinking is alive and well.
How did you get that out of this conversation? I'm assuming this was not directed toward my comments.

User avatar
tmac
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4526
Location: Reality

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by tmac »

People should always be entitled to determine for themselves whether or not a shoe fits.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15309
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

tmac wrote: January 31st, 2023, 10:16 am People should always be entitled to determine for themselves whether or not a shoe fits.
With that line of reasoning, you could justify any manner of sin. But yes, you are correct, to each their own revelation.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Shawn Henry »

Gadianton Slayer wrote: January 31st, 2023, 8:30 am
tmac wrote: January 31st, 2023, 8:04 am Was it adultery?
Yes.

Your logic is flawed as it relies on the modern, dictionary definition of adultery which is simply sex with someone who isn’t your legal wife. Christ taught something much more profound:

“But I say unto you, That ​​whosoever ​​​looketh​ on a ​​​woman​ to ​​​lust after​ her hath committed ​​​adultery​ with her already in his heart.” (Matt 5:28)

Lust is sexual desire. You can’t tell me that plural marriages are made without some level of lust. Even if adultery isn’t the right term, I’ll just use what Christ said: “abominable”… or maybe what Hyrum said: “damn-fool doctrine.”

Scripture makes the significance of one wife pretty clear. I think anything seemingly pro-multiple wives has been altered from some form of adoption or caring for multiple women, and has nothing to do with sexual relationships.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:2
If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

Titus 1:6
Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

Jacob 2:27
…for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.

Jacob 3:5
Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;

D&C 49:15
Of course, the typical spin is "at least" one wife, as if that isn't twisting scripture.

I just noticed that it could have been written as "should be married", but in all those cases they specifically included the number of wives, which makes me think it was purposeful, almost as if they too were fighting this polygamy battle in their time.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Shawn Henry »

TheDuke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 7:34 pm Somewhere along the way something was added.
The BoM consistently hints at indigenous populations being there, which solves your numbers dilemma.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 15309
Location: “if thine eye offend thee, pluck him out.”
Contact:

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

tmac wrote: January 31st, 2023, 10:16 am People should always be entitled to determine for themselves whether or not a shoe fits.
I have to ask, have you studied what Joseph, Hyrum, and Emma said about the topic of multiple wives and polygamy while they were alive?

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Shawn Henry »

tmac wrote: January 31st, 2023, 9:37 am What is a whole lot less clear, and in fact highly doubtful, is whether God agrees with you?
How is it highly doubtful? I'm not trying to argue, I just want to know how you see it.

I see it as Jacob 2 being the only time we have the Lord directly speaking on the matter and he chose the words "their having many wives and concubines" was an abomination. He specifically did not leave room to say how it wasn't an abomination. I just don't see how the master craftsman chose the wrong words, but in fairness, I don't see a lot of things.

User avatar
Gadianton Slayer
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6551
Location: A Sound Mind

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Gadianton Slayer »

Shawn Henry wrote: January 31st, 2023, 10:29 am Of course, the typical spin is "at least" one wife, as if that isn't twisting scripture.
The typical spin is stupid.

I think you’re right, specifying the number doesn’t really leave much to the imagination. But I’ve learned than one can believe and justify anything they desire nowadays.

User avatar
cab
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2986
Location: ♫ I am a Mormon! ♫ And... dang it... a Mormon just believes! ♫

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by cab »

Juliet wrote: January 31st, 2023, 4:31 am
cab wrote: November 19th, 2021, 7:41 am
Reluctant Watchman wrote: November 18th, 2021, 7:46 am I was a little astounded when I searched the forum for anything on Polygamy... and came up with nothing. Not even the word has ever been brought up in conversation. I was a little surprised, but I get it. It's not a very polarizing topic. I'm guessing since it was such a small part of church history that most people don't care to study it much these days.

Anyway... here's an essay that I published on the subject. NOT controversial at all, just a few of my opinions. ;)

(Polygamy = Adultery)
https://www.reluctantwatchman.com/polygamy-adultery

I believe there is a mystery in polygamy. Why has it popped up so often among the Lord’s covenant people? What is always the result - hardship? What can we learn?

Perhaps it goes back to Adam and Eve (just as Adam was beguiled to partake of a something forbidden so that “man may be”, so did Abraham and Jacob enter into unsanctioned unions. Perhaps it goes all the way back to the watchers (exalted beings who went into unsanctioned unions). David too acted as a watcher with Bathsheba and went in unto her and “partook. I wonder if God’s people partaking in polygamy over time have made them unwitting participants in a type of sacramental re-enactment of the original fall of the Garden…

Just my thoughts
That is exactly what I think happened. Eve was raped after stupidly putting trust in her brother the serpent. Because he was her brother, she stupidly didn't think he meant her any harm. And after he did harm her;, he told Adam - guess what, your wife isn't faithful to you! And not only that, but nor is God...because why would God create a helpmeet for you that isn't even faithful to you? And Adam ate the fruit of that serpent.... which became the beginning of hating mankind because we were unable to obey God. And so all of humanity keeps repeating this trauma. We were supposed to forgive each other and heal this broken covenant because it is made to be everlasting!..We were supposed to trust God knew what He was doing when He put us in the divine order of eternal marriage such that if something tried to destroy it; it would fail. Believing that his own wife didn't desire in her heart to be faithful to him was a lie from the serpent, a lie that caused Adam to fall. A lie over which humanity has yet to achieve victory.

I am so grateful there are good fathers out there like you that see the truth, that innocent women ought to be protected! Their honor defended!

I’m going to have to ponder on this Juliet. I think there may be something to what you’ve said here. Let me try to say why I think so.

I have received, at one point in time, a clear flash of understanding about Eden that I’ve had to ponder. It is that every “new world” perhaps is born when a higher being transgresses and then condescends to a telestial world and that this Adam and Eve have posterity that can be redeemed, with their posterity being of a lower station of glory, but through “Adam” and his fall and eventual redemption, that they (the children) might be redeemed when he (the father) is redeemed through the means prepared, which is always through Christ (the Father).

I say this to say that every telestial world that comes into being through a transgression in a higher world (terrestrial world) is always via a different transgression, with every transgression from God’s command results in a fall…

But in this case, of Adam and Eve, what was the transgression? Maybe, Juliet, like you said, it was adultery. Maybe a celestial being (Lucifer) came down and “watched” Eve and beguiled her into an unsanctioned union… And Eve offered Adam the same (like Sarah offering Hagar to Abram)… And thus they know for themselves between good and evil, having partaken of the fruit of the “tree of transgression”… I think it should be called the “tree of transgression” which stands opposite the “tree of life”.

And that is why i ponder the question of polygamy among Gods’s people…. It’s almost like it’s an Eden-like sacrament of what caused the fall in the first place… a ritualized adultery that Satan made appear liken it was the “only way” to be like Father…. I lie that God’s people have been beguiled into throughout this particular round of creation… which is why the “law of chastity” is given such a high priority in our temple ceremony- which is meant to represent our redemption from the mistake made in Eden.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5862
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by TheDuke »

Shawn Henry wrote: January 31st, 2023, 10:33 am
TheDuke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 7:34 pm Somewhere along the way something was added.
The BoM consistently hints at indigenous populations being there, which solves your numbers dilemma.
Perhaps in later years but not in Jacob's day. And if so, then he is not talking about real Nephi's family, but some allegory but the entire writings of Jacob are specific, not general. That is the issue I see. It is as if someone down the road, in the larger society took his diary of his day, wrote it down with their own perspective of a larger world. That is the only way to make sense of it. Sorry, there were very few people together as a tribe "nation" in the first generation of landing. And BTW they don't mention others once, as you say, which is likely true but confirms what I said in the first place.

Juliet
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3701

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Juliet »

cab wrote: January 31st, 2023, 10:49 am
Juliet wrote: January 31st, 2023, 4:31 am
cab wrote: November 19th, 2021, 7:41 am
Reluctant Watchman wrote: November 18th, 2021, 7:46 am I was a little astounded when I searched the forum for anything on Polygamy... and came up with nothing. Not even the word has ever been brought up in conversation. I was a little surprised, but I get it. It's not a very polarizing topic. I'm guessing since it was such a small part of church history that most people don't care to study it much these days.

Anyway... here's an essay that I published on the subject. NOT controversial at all, just a few of my opinions. ;)

(Polygamy = Adultery)
https://www.reluctantwatchman.com/polygamy-adultery

I believe there is a mystery in polygamy. Why has it popped up so often among the Lord’s covenant people? What is always the result - hardship? What can we learn?

Perhaps it goes back to Adam and Eve (just as Adam was beguiled to partake of a something forbidden so that “man may be”, so did Abraham and Jacob enter into unsanctioned unions. Perhaps it goes all the way back to the watchers (exalted beings who went into unsanctioned unions). David too acted as a watcher with Bathsheba and went in unto her and “partook. I wonder if God’s people partaking in polygamy over time have made them unwitting participants in a type of sacramental re-enactment of the original fall of the Garden…

Just my thoughts
That is exactly what I think happened. Eve was raped after stupidly putting trust in her brother the serpent. Because he was her brother, she stupidly didn't think he meant her any harm. And after he did harm her;, he told Adam - guess what, your wife isn't faithful to you! And not only that, but nor is God...because why would God create a helpmeet for you that isn't even faithful to you? And Adam ate the fruit of that serpent.... which became the beginning of hating mankind because we were unable to obey God. And so all of humanity keeps repeating this trauma. We were supposed to forgive each other and heal this broken covenant because it is made to be everlasting!..We were supposed to trust God knew what He was doing when He put us in the divine order of eternal marriage such that if something tried to destroy it; it would fail. Believing that his own wife didn't desire in her heart to be faithful to him was a lie from the serpent, a lie that caused Adam to fall. A lie over which humanity has yet to achieve victory.

I am so grateful there are good fathers out there like you that see the truth, that innocent women ought to be protected! Their honor defended!

I’m going to have to ponder on this Juliet. I think there may be something to what you’ve said here. Let me try to say why I think so.

I have received, at one point in time, a clear flash of understanding about Eden that I’ve had to ponder. It is that every “new world” perhaps is born when a higher being transgresses and then condescends to a telestial world and that this Adam and Eve have posterity that can be redeemed, with their posterity being of a lower station of glory, but through “Adam” and his fall and eventual redemption, that they (the children) might be redeemed when he (the father) is redeemed through the means prepared, which is always through Christ (the Father).

I say this to say that every telestial world that comes into being through a transgression in a higher world (terrestrial world) is always via a different transgression, with every transgression from God’s command results in a fall…

But in this case, of Adam and Eve, what was the transgression? Maybe, Juliet, like you said, it was adultery. Maybe a celestial being (Lucifer) came down and “watched” Eve and beguiled her into an unsanctioned union… And Eve offered Adam the same (like Sarah offering Hagar to Abram)… And thus they know for themselves between good and evil, having partaken of the fruit of the “tree of transgression”… I think it should be called the “tree of transgression” which stands opposite the “tree of life”.

And that is why i ponder the question of polygamy among Gods’s people…. It’s almost like it’s an Eden-like sacrament of what caused the fall in the first place… a ritualized adultery that Satan made appear liken it was the “only way” to be like Father…. I lie that God’s people have been beguiled into throughout this particular round of creation… which is why the “law of chastity” is given such a high priority in our temple ceremony- which is meant to represent our redemption from the mistake made in Eden.
Your idea is fascinating and I agree with this concept that polygamy was a repeat of the trauma of the Garden of Eden, where Adam thought it was God's will for his wife to be beguiled since God created Eve and Eve was beguiled. He could easily be confused by Lucifer to think God wanted this bad thing to happen to Eve, because Lucifer would have made Adam think she consented to it; when really he had tricked her, and misused her naive trust such that Eve had no way of defending herself since God told her not to have anything to do with the snake, and she thought; surely I can trust my own brother! And because she disobeyed God she had no defense; even though it was never in her heart to commit adultery. Then when Lucifer put it into men's hearts to abuse women, women accepted it and felt like they deserved it because they trusted the wrong source. Like how a kid would trust her brother instead of mom and dad. So then God sent us the real older brother, whom we can trust, who will not lead us astray.

Isaiah 54 1
"Sing, O barren woman, you who never bore a child; burst into song, shout for joy, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband," says the LORD.

I don't think it is desired or necessary to create fallen telestial worlds through committing adultery; but it must happen because we have free will and mistakes and mess-ups occur in that environment. There are even those who get it in their minds to purposely try to thwart God's work, to compete with it or try to better it, or just plain test it to see if it can be destroyed. (Cough. mRNA technology. Cough).

And when it happens, do you think God is going to forsake us? Or does he find a way to adopt us back; to "baptize" us back so we are not lost forever.

I also believe the tree of knowledge, as you said, a tree of transgression, can be called a tree of illusion. Because knowledge is not truth. You can have a knowledge that 2+2=5, but that knowledge won't get you very far in the real world.
Last edited by Juliet on January 31st, 2023, 11:44 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Luke »

Shawn Henry wrote: January 31st, 2023, 9:49 am
Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 4:12 pm My main problem with your argument is that men and women just aren’t equal, and there’s no point trying to argue that they are. The Scriptures are unequivocal on this, and so was the Prophet Joseph Smith.
This is just insane, I can't believe you actually believe this. Women aren't equal to men, so it's okay that they are sexual war trophies with no say in the matter.

The idea that we believe the Bible only as far as it is translated correctly has just never entered your mind, has it? Scribes can throw in all sorts of garbage, and you just suck it right up as if Joseph should have never uttered those words.
Big leap from “unequal” to “sexual war trophies”. The specifics of the argument wasn’t the point.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Polygamy = Adultery

Post by Luke »

Shawn Henry wrote: January 31st, 2023, 9:39 am
Luke wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:31 pm Deuteronomy 21
10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
Luke, use a little discernment and honestly look at whether those are the Lord's words.
This strikes at the root of all your arguments. On the one hand, you say go to the Scriptures, on the other you write off anything in Scripture you don’t want to hear as not being actually from God.
On this basis, anyone can just wave away any Scriptures that they don’t like, and then we end up with homosexuals saying that their actions are right (“‘Homosexuality is an abomination’??? Are they really the words of the Lord????”)

Locked