Charity wrote: 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.
The post you are referring to and your answer:
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.
Charity just take your posts above at word value and nothing else, just what you wrote not what you meant or that you thought was implied. If that is your opinion with no clarification or implied meanings you would be in favor of same sex marriages or letting the FLDS Mormons do whatever they want. I knew that you were not in favor of same sex marriages or FDLS Mormons but your post did not indicate that. Nor did you indicate anything about law or following the law of the land.
I knew what your next responses were going to be and I agree with your "Jeffs broke the law" statement but so did Joseph Smith and Porter answered that. I had no real problem with your definition relating to same sex marriages, I think that is the understood definition whether I agree with it or not. That is why I never responded to you on that. But as you interpreted the marriage definition further I did and do take exception and thus I responded to you about "a man a woman". And I wish to respond further and it is not a rabbit hole, it is the natural course of discussion of your interpretation of the definition of marriage.
Charity wrote: 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.
So two pairs of hands, multiple times meets your definition? I declare that there were many hands on the altar. In some cases it could be viewed as: a wife and a husband and Joseph's hands equal six hands, that's 3 pairs Charity and then this was done multiple times. I guess you can't understand how someone can view this as even sicker than what just plain polygamy is.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
How many "they two shall be one flesh" unions can there be? It doesn't say "they three or four or more become one flesh".
Charity wrote: 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.
So you are saying the Joseph Smith took advantage of a loop hole in the law? So be that. But don't you think it was against the law to marry another man's wife? If that is freedom of religion even as Joseph Smith interpreted it where is that written down? Is that in D&C 132?
Charity wrote: 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.
So you admit that your feet were knocked out from under you? You better watch out for rabbit holes a little better Alice.
I am replying back, I think your logic on this issue and argument on the definition of marriage is about the lamest I have ever heard ever. Tag.
Coggie or Gazum are good at scriptures are you?
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Why didn't God give Adam more than one wife? He certainly could have spared another rib or two. With the command to multiply and fill the earth it seems this would have been the perfect time to institute polygamy if God had deemed it as a Godly practice, don't you think?
Tit 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Just small part of the Bible that states one wife not wives, or one wife multiple times. But I guess those are the very parts that have not been translated correctly. Right?