Charity I guess I have grown tired of your neener neeners which is what your OP really was. I have also grown tired of your play with definitions and word engineering. I have also grown tired of someone who can't spell correcting everyone else's spelling.
I will go slow here just for you, your exact words are: "marriage is by definition a unioin of a man and a woman". Let's do your normal definition and word engineering tactics on this phrase.
Marriage is by definition:
a unioin - "a" unioin, one unioin, not more than one unioin, not several unioins
of a man - "a" man, one man, not more than one man, not several men
and a woman - "a" woman, one woman, not more than one woman, not several women
Dear Joseph broke all points of the definition you provided.
He had more than one unioin.
He knowingly allowed several of his wives to have more than one unioin and more than one man.
And of course, he had many wives.
Charity, when did the definition of "marriage" change?
I think that Truth Dancer's post is spot on, your defense of of Joseph and your word engineering of the definition you provided is nothing more than childish.
I don't think that even Warren Jeffs allowed his wives to have more than one man. He seems to have one up on Joseph. But really the only difference between Joseph and Warren is about 180 years. Nothing else.
Pokatator :So then please apply your two statements, "I also think that any group can put down their own rules. And then if you want to belong to the group you follow the rules. You can't say you want to belong but you think the rules are stupid. Go find a group that agrees with what you think." and "It is none of my business which of the sealings were dynastic and which were marriages. I would not be upset either direction. Marriages and marriage relations are between the people involved. I think everyone should just butt out of private lives."
charity: Jeffs had to go along with the law of the land after it had been adjudicated by the Supreme Court, just as the LDS had to. Whether we like it or not, marriages are regulated by county and state and federal law. So, everyone ought to butt out of the private lives of married couples.
Warren Jeffs wasn't following the law of the land.
How come I knew your response even before I asked? Charity you are totally predictable. Porter already hit you with what I had in mind. Joseph and the church also broke the law.
Tag you're it.[/quote]
Sorry. I guess I forgot that only critics and anti's get to post stuff in favor of the Church. Silly me.
Let' s get back to your real post, and not the rabbit trail you want to take us down. You asked me what about same sex marraiges. I said there was no such thing as a same sex marraige, because marriage is between a man and a woman. You did not reply back to that, but went down the "a man a woman" track.
Okay. Let's follow that one. In each plural marriage, the man and the woman are united in marriage. There aren't three pairs of hands on the altar. Just two. So that still works.
And about the law. The "law" was clearly ambiguous until the Supreme Court made its ruling. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. It was clearly the position of the Church that this was part of the religion and therefore the laws against it were unconstitutional. When the Supreme Court ruled, the Manifesto was issued. And yes, you can predict that I think the Federal Government did and continuese to interfere with free exercise of religion guaranteed in the Constitiution, and the Supreme Court was wrong.
It is pretty hard to play tag with your feet knocked out from under you. I guess I won't see anything posted back on this. You have no reply.