I have never at any time considered polygamy to necessarily be adultery.

The physical intimate marital contact that Smith had with women was within the Biblical concept of polygamy.

Not a sin.

 

 The sealing to men might have taken place with Smith. I personally think it did. I believe there might have been one example. However, this adoption theology was much more prevalent during the time of Brigham Young.

Some number of Smiths sealings were not in the Biblical sense.

There is strong evidence that the sealings to married people did not include marital relations of a physical nature.

 

 

I keep agreeing with you that polygamy is not a sin in the Bible. However, marriage of already married women is a sin in the Bible.

When asked to provide a source that Smith engaged in physical relations with already-married people, you did not provide a first-hand source.

I provided a trusted history source that says that physical contact between Smith and already-married people is non-existant and no first hand source exists making the claim.

Sin? You and I both know you won’t provide a first hand source making the claim that Smith engaged in physical contact of a marital nature with already-married women.

So—you have no evidence Smith committed sin.

And—Smith did not follow Levitical Law. For one, Jacob did not. And two, Levitical Law does not apply to Christians.

 

I am still waiting for what you think defines adultery.

And I am still waiting for a first-hand source that Smith had physical contact of a marital nature with the already-married individuals.

Smiths physical contact with women were with women he was in a polygamist relationship in the Biblical sense. There just is not getting around that for you.

 

 

You want to say polygamy is not adultery.

That is a Biblical standard. Polygamy is not a sin in the Bible.

 

 I agree that it is not necessarily adultery in the Bible. I have sent you a link which shows that he did have sex with already married women just as Brigham Young did.

Your link did not include a first hand source. I went to your source. It was a second hand source. And I provided you with information from a trusted history source that describes your source as weak.

Weak.

You have no smoking gun here.

And the woman left her husband for Young. That was her choice. And no divorce in the frontier? Not uncommon. Pratt had a wife who did the same. That is not uncommon. It was her choice.

 

 This is very definitely adultery in the Bible.

You bring in Young as a red herring because she left her husband, married young, and in the frontier there was no divorce.

But Smith? You have to bring in a red herring to try to attach it to Smith.

 

 I used to blame B.Y. unfairly, but it looks like Smith did it first.

You are engaging in gymnastics and making tenuous connections to make your point.

 

When you have given a suitable definition of adultery, then you can try and give a suitable definition of “bearing false witness”. If you can’t even elucidate the meaning of the ten commandments, then why should anyone believe you when you say Smith meets the definition of a Biblical prophet?

Ad hominem.

Projection.

I have gone through each of the ten commandments, and Smith meets each one.

Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”