Warren Jeffs and FLDS

[betsy]

Except when Jesus mentions the law, he means the law....the entire law including the parts that christians ignore

Since you're rejecting my supported claim, then cite that passage in the Bible to back up your assertion.

You seem to know more than the Apostles do what Christ meant.

Edited August 10, 2011 by betsy

[jacee]

the first wife could ask for a divorce if she objected to her hubby having a 2nd wife...which is what wives do now when hubby has girlfriend...the rich and the powerful have always had more than thier share of multiple women that isn't anything new and it hasn't destablized our society...

vastly exaggerated, women wouldn't accept it...

Happens all the time.

[pinko]

"the first wife could ask for a divorce if she objected to her hubby having a 2nd wife...which is what wives do now when hubby has girlfriend...the rich and the powerful have always had more than thier share of multiple women that isn't anything new and it hasn't destablized our society..."

You have an interesting way of framing the issue in relating the mores of the cult to that of society at large. If I am not mistaken in Canada a divorce can be proceeded with by either gender and in some cases via joint application. Both bigamy and polygamy are currently prohibited in Canadian law and the desire to denote extra-marital relationships as being that of husband and wife is a misnomer.

Whatever the shortcomings and permissiveness of the modern day society may be there is no comparison between the degree of control exercised within the cult by the likes of Blackmore and Osler in Bountiful, B.C. and those of these rich guys you speak of. Secondly I am wondering if these rich guys you refer to routinely have sex with minors.

What does destabilize our society is the exploitation of children and that is an issue, aside from polygamy, that needs to be addressed.

Here is a book which may be instructive to the issues at hand. "The Secret Lives of Saints: Child Brides and Lost Boys in a Polygamous Mormon Sect" [Hardcover]

Daphne Bramham (Author)

Edited August 10, 2011 by pinko

[g_bambino]

Why don't you follow the trail.

I have. And, for your sake, will start you on it again: Following on the one I've already linked to - in which you said reading the Bible would save people from being misled by Warren Jeffs, a polygamist, and others like him - here is your subsequent post focusing on polygamy. And the next. And the next. And the next.

You were asked to find a source in the Bible that forbade polygamy and couldn't meet the request.

[+]

Edited August 10, 2011 by g_bambino

[M.Dancer]

Since you're rejecting my supported claim, then cite that passage in the Bible to back up your assertion.

You seem to know more than the Apostles do what Christ meant.

Really now...so you think that the apostles believed that Jesus was editing the Law?

anyway, Jesus implicitly condones polygamy and the entire body of Mosaic law....Some Jewish men approached Jesus and asked what would happen in heaven is, say, a man died leaving his childless wife behind which meant that a brother of the dead man was obligated (under the Law) to marry her...

Now Jesus didn't ask...is this man already married? of course not, because being already married was not an obstacle...

[Oleg Bach]

Since you're rejecting my supported claim, then cite that passage in the Bible to back up your assertion.

You seem to know more than the Apostles do what Christ meant.

The Apostles are religious creations..with not much to do with Jesus the Christ - take Peter for instance - a traitor who denied the master three times - what person in their right mind would leave Peter the keys to the company vault - or Paul - commonly called Saul who never met Christ yet the universal church is supposedly based on his teachings and not those of Christ - and Mary the mother of Jesus who betrayed her own son because she believed he was insane --------Why - did we make heros of the villians in the bible?

[betsy]

I have. And, for your sake, will start you on it again: Following on the one I've already linked to - in which you said reading the Bible would save people from being misled by Warren Jeffs, a polygamist, and others like him - here is your subsequent post focusing on polygamy. And the next. And the next. And the next.

To which I quipped that nothing stops MDancer from having multiple wives! If he seeks validation - then go for religion that condones polygamy!

I wonder if Hindus practice polygamy? I should ask MDancer....

You were asked to find a source in the Bible that forbade polygamy and couldn't meet the request.

[+]

And I did. If you both don't agree with my answer, that's not my problem anymore. What can I say....one can lead the horse to the water, but you can't force the horse to drink it.

Edited August 11, 2011 by betsy

[M.Dancer]

And I did. If you both don't agree with my answer, that's not my problem anymore.

I too am comfortable with you being wrong.

[betsy]

Really now...so you think that the apostles believed that Jesus was editing the Law?

anyway, Jesus implicitly condones polygamy and the entire body of Mosaic law....Some Jewish men approached Jesus and asked what would happen in heaven is, say, a man died leaving his childless wife behind which meant that a brother of the dead man was obligated (under the Law) to marry her...

Now Jesus didn't ask...is this man already married? of course not, because being already married was not an obstacle...

This must be what you're referring to.

Matt 22:23-33

The question about the Resurrection

23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Finally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”

29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[a]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

Take note of the subject title of this portion. This is about the resurrection of the dead. Not about marriage, or polygamy.

Just like you, the Saducees rejected belief in the supernatural, especially angels and resurrection of the dead.

With "Moses said...," the Saducees were referring to the practice of "levirate marriage" which called for an unmarried brother to take his brother's widow for his own wife.

My Bible footnotes explains:

The absurd hypothetical case given by the Saducees attempts to discredit the legitimacy of the resurrection. This extreme example must've been thought by them to be the ultimate proof of the foolishness of the doctrine of resurrection.

And it is indeed an absurd hypothetical example.

Take note of Jesus' reply.

“You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.

He then explained that in the resurrection, men do not marry. They are asexual like the angels.

Therefore MDancer, that did not support your case at all since it has nothing to do about your polygamy case at all.

Edited August 11, 2011 by betsy

[M.Dancer]

This must be what you're referring to.

Take note of the subject title of this portion. This is about the resurrection of the dead. Not marriage, or polygamy.

Just like you, the Saducees rejected belief in the supernatural, especially angels and resurrection of the dead.

With "Moses said...," the Saducees were referring to the practice of "levirate marriage" which called for an unmarried brother to take his brother's widow for his own wife.

The absurd hypothetical case given by the Saducees attempts to discredit the legitimacy of the resurrection. This extreme example must've been thought by them to be the ultimate proof of the foolishness of the doctrine of resurrection.

Take note of Jesus' reply.

“You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.

He then explained that in the resurrection, men do not marry. They are asexual like the angels.

Yes yes yes...and that is neither here no there...what is important is that was the normal practice of the day, and given an opportunity, Jesus does not condemn a man having two wives.....no if he divorced one of those wives and married another...well, that would be adultry!

[g_bambino]

To which I quipped that nothing stops MDancer from having multiple wives!

Thank you for admitting I wasn't in the least bit dishonest.

And I did.

You did not.

[betsy]

Yes yes yes...and that is neither here no there...what is important is that was the normal practice of the day, and given an opportunity, Jesus does not condemn a man having two wives.....no if he divorced one of those wives and married another...well, that would be adultry!

That it was being practiced does not necessarily mean that it was condoned by Jesus.

What....don't you even know why Jesus was lambasting the clergy of the day???

One of the reasons Jesus had a lot of enemies was due to Him speaking against some of the traditions and practices of the people - which were being condoned and perpetuated by the Pharisees!

What do you think your example about resurrection was all about? The Saducees questioning His authority!

And why do you think they were questioning His authority?

Because He's telling them they're doing things wrong!

That's the problem when you guys just pick and choose any verse you want to use in the Bible. You don't use it in its proper context.

That's why....here I go again:

It's important to read and try to understand the Bible.

And you make a perfect example as to why.

Edited August 11, 2011 by betsy

[M.Dancer]

That it was being practiced does not necessarily mean that it was condoned by Jesus.

Possibly, but given that he never spoke out against what would have been an anceint tradition that had been practised by their most honoured patriarchs and heroes....you cannot possibly know he did not condone it

What....don't you even know why Jesus was lambasting the clergy of the day???

Of course I know, I already said it was irrelevant to the discussion.

One of the reasons Jesus had a lot of enemies was due to Him speaking against some of the traditions and practices of the people - which were being condoned and perpetuated by the Pharisees!

Undoubtably. Interestingly enough, the authors of the gospel failed to mention anything about polygamy.

What do you think your example about resurrection was all about? The Saducees questioning His authority!

Neither the saducees, or the pharisees or jesus had any authority. They had another motive. The same one we have here.

And why do you think they were questioning His authority?

Because He's telling them they're doing things wrong!

Gosh..how many other things did he say were wrong, but were never thought important enough to mention?

That's the problem when you guys just pick and choose any verse you want to use in the Bible. You don't use it in its proper context.

Please...your hypocrasy here is flabbergasting!

It's important to read and try to understand the Bible.

Oh please do one day...so I won't need to school you!

[Oleg Bach]

If the females are at the age of 18 and the patriarch is a good - kind honest and fair man - then let him have as many wives as he can take care of...They system does not like polagamy because it creates mini kingdoms - Once the partriach is say 60 he may have 50 adult children - that would make him a mini-king and a wealthy tribal leader - The only KING allowed in this courtry is the government or the super wealthy.

In the alternative if a potential patriach attempts to mess with 12 year old female children -toss the bastard in jail....And I might mention that matriarchy and female polagamy are already condoned in our liberal socialist democracy - WE don't seem to have a problem with a woman who has six childern through six different mates - and we also condone a divorced woman who had children and goes no to have MORE children with a second or third partner....so what gives - woman can do it but men can't?

[betsy]

Possibly, but given that he never spoke out against what would have been an anceint tradition that had been practised by their most honoured patriarchs and heroes....you cannot possibly know he did not condone it

He did speak against it. ADULTERY.

In Matt. 19:4 we are told by Jesus that God created one “male and [one] female” and joined them in marriage. Mark 10:6-8:"But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.

The two as one is the pattern on how marriage was to be conducted from the start. NOT three or four as one.

Eve was taken from Adams body and given back to him as his wife (singular) showing God’s approval of what the marriage union is to be like. God always spoke of man's “wife,” as singular, not wives. Notice it also states one father one mother.

It wasn’t until sin made man fall (Gen. 4:23) that polygamy occurs. Cain was cursed, Lamech is a descendent of Cain and the first to practice polygamy. The first time polygamous relationship is found in the Bible is with a thriving rebellious society in sin; when a murderer named “Lamech [a descendant of Cain] took for himself two wives” (Gen.4:19, 23).

The same Godly pattern of one man and one wife is lived by Noah. At the time of the Ark (Gen. 7:7), Noah took his one wife into the ark, all his son’s took one wife; God called Noah’s family righteous and pure. If polygamy were ordained of God, it would have made sense that Noah and his sons would have taken additional wives with them to repopulate the earth faster from the cataclysm.

God never condoned polygamy but like divorce he allowed it to occur and did not bring an immediate punishment for this disobedience. Deut. 17:14-17: “I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,' “you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you, 'You shall not return that way again.' “Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.” This is the command of God, and he has never changed it.

The fact is that God never commanded polygamy or divorce. Scripture says (Bible) He only permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts (Deut. 24:1; Matt. 19:8). Matt. 5:31-32: “Furthermore it has been said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.” God hates divorce as well as polygamy, since it destroys the family (Mal. 2:16). Whatever the patriarchs or any Christian did wrong does not change the fact the Bible condemns it.

Multiple wives was tolerated but never with God's approval. Jesus told the Jews, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way" (Matthew 19:3-8).

The Mosaic law aimed at mitigating, rather than removing, evils that were inseparable from the state of society in that day. Its enactments were directed to the discouragement of polygamy; to prevent the injustice frequently consequent upon the exercise of the rights of a father or a master; to bring divorce under some restriction; and to enforce purity of life during the maintenance of the matrimonial bond.

The Bible says adultery is not a choice, one does not have to acquire another wife to solve his urges. Jesus said if you look upon another woman with desire (married or not) it is adultery, a sin.

Paul insisted that a leader in the church should be “the husband of one wife,” a deacon or elder must have one wife... Titus 1:6.

The New Testament teaches that, “Each man [should] have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). Monogamous marriage teaches us the type of the relation Christ has between himself and His bride, the church (Eph. 5:31-32). The church is called the bride, collectively as one (singular) each person is not a bride, as in plurality of wives and marriages.

http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp75.htm Edited August 12, 2011 by betsy

[Oleg Bach]

Jesus really enjoyed the company of woman - it was that gimp Paul who came up with the idea that ifyou can not control your sexual drive that you should marry. If you could not get married because you were so damned unattractive as Paul was - You could become a priest and NOT marry - apparently that did not work out well for the Catholics.

[M.Dancer]

He did speak against it. ADULTERY.

http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp75.htm

Which is not relevant here. A man with two wives would not be committing adultery unless he divorced one and married another. So why is the caveat placed 'unless she has been divorced for committed adultery" he would not be committing adultery?

Because if she has been caught fooling around she would be executed...therefore the former husband is in the clear to remarry.

[betsy]

Which is not relevant here.

Adultery? Not relevant? ho-ho-ho

You wish! Because you can't get around it, huh?

Of course it's relevant. Very much so. And if you take all the rest of the passages and explanations that I quoted, they show how consistent Jesus is with the Old Testament...and that the Old Testament is not pro-polygamy.

Just because there was no bolt of lightning striking everyone who took multiple wives does not mean God approved polygamy.

A man with two wives would not be committing adultery unless he divorced one and married another.

A man, by having two wives, already did commit adultery!

So why is the caveat placed 'unless she has been divorced for committed adultery" he would not be committing adultery?

Because if she has been caught fooling around she would be executed...therefore the former husband is in the clear to remarry.

Ehhh?

You sound so confused here....and now you're confusing me too. State the exact verse that you're referring to.

Btw, do you have two wives? Planning on a third one?

For an atheist, you seem so desperate for any form of Godly validation.

Edited August 12, 2011 by betsy

[g_bambino]

the Old Testament is not pro-polygamy.

It isn't against polygamy, either.

A man, by having two wives, already did commit adultery! :angry: :angry:

Not according to the Bible.

[Saipan]

When it's adultery and when it's childery?

[M.Dancer]

Just because there was no bolt of lightning striking everyone who took multiple wives does not mean God approved polygamy.

Did not God approve of Abraham?

[Oleg Bach]

The old testiment is not a holy book in full. Most of it is a documentation of horrifically bad human conduct - Why it is used by some as a template and justification for more bad behavour is beyond me. People think that if it is in the Old Testiment that it must be a good thing..they did it so I can do it....the bible is full of evil as well as good wisdom. For instance if an old withered king is given a 15 year old girl to get his blood flowing again - does not mean that it is a good thing - by the way the old king died anyway...You have to have a decerning mind and eye to understand the bible...I still think that it is weird that King David was such a leecher that he had Bathsheba's husband killed so he could have her....AND - all of Israel admire this king to this day..flying his flag that David stole from his father Solomon and re-named it...no wonder Israel got of to a bad start - bad heros create more bad heros.

[betsy]

Did not God approve of Abraham?

The story of Abraham happened before the Mosaic Law was given.

Did Abraham commit adultery by begetting a son from the maid....I don't know.

How is it a crime if it's not a law?

But in Deuteronomy it was written:

“Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away;

And that's what exactly happened to Solomon.

Solomon had multiple wives and concubines....and ended up as God warned against. Solomon's heart turned away from God due to the influence of his wives.

No bolts of lightning or immediate punishments. But there were grave consequences.

Edited August 13, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

The story of Abraham happened before the Mosaic Law was given.

Did Abraham commit adultery by begetting a son from the maid....I don't know.

How is it a crime if it's not a law?

Acts against God's Law are sins, not crimes.

But in Deuteronomy it was written

“Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away;

And Chapter 21, verse 15 to 18 of the same Deuteronomy set rules on how a man should treat his children from two wives.

[betsy]

Did not God approve of Abraham?

The story of Abraham happened before the Mosaic Law was given.

Did Abraham commit adultery by begetting a son from the maid....I don't know.

How is it a crime if it's not a law?

But in Deuteronomy it was written:

“Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away;

And that's what exactly happened to Solomon.

Solomon had multiple wives and concubines....and ended up as God warned against. Solomon's heart turned away from God due to the influence of his wives.

No bolts of lightning or immediate punishments. But there were grave consequences

Along the same vein of grave consequences, I speculate this:

Abraham and Sarah got impatient waiting for the promised child that they took matters into their own hands - the result was Ishmael.

The existence of Ishmael created a repercussion that we - unto this very day - still feel.

Genesis 16

Hagar and Ishmael

1 Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; 2 so she said to Abram, “The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”

Abram agreed to what Sarai said. 3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. 4 He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.

When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. 5 Then Sarai said to Abram, “You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my slave in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the LORD judge between you and me.”

6 “Your slave is in your hands,” Abram said. “Do with her whatever you think best.” Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her.

7 The angel of the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur. 8 And he said, “Hagar, slave of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?”

“I’m running away from my mistress Sarai,” she answered.

9 Then the angel of the LORD told her, “Go back to your mistress and submit to her.” 10 The angel added, “I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count.”

11 The angel of the LORD also said to her:

“You are now pregnant

and you will give birth to a son.

You shall name him Ishmael,[a]

for the LORD has heard of your misery.

12 He will be a wild donkey of a man;

his hand will be against everyone

and everyone’s hand against him,

and he will live in hostility

toward all his brothers.”

If you remember the Old Testament account, you will be somewhat perplexed. Was not Isaac the one whom God instructed Abraham to offer? The difference is this. Christians accept the testimony of the Bible. Muslims reject the Bible and believe the Koran (or Qur’an) contains the inspired, uncorrupted record. Who is right?

Although the Koran does not name the child whom Abraham was to sacrifice, Muslims believe it was Ishmael, and they believe that idea is supported by the Koran.

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1161-ishmael-or-isaac-the-koran-or-the-bible

Edited August 14, 2011 by betsy