As Ordained by God in the Garden of Eden


You may not have sexual relations with the sister of your wife while your wife is still living. It is incest.

Leviticus 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex [her], to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life [time].

In short, marrying two sisters at the same time is a violation of the laws against incest. You are forbidden to do it. There are some who enter into a semantic type of nonsense concerning this verse while ignoring the context. They claim that if a man doesn’t set out to vex his wife by marrying her sister that he’s not violating Leviticus 18:18 but that’s not the point of this verse. Leviticus 18:18 is a law against committing a particular type of incest. The context in which this incest law is found is within a long list of incestuous bans.

Leviticus 18:14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she [is] thine aunt.

This is speaking of after the uncle is dead. During the life of the uncle it would be adultery but this has no limit such as in the ban on uncovering the nakedness of a wife.

Leviticus 18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it [is] thy brother’s nakedness.

Again, this is speaking of after the brother is dead for during the life of the brother it would be adultery and this also has no limit such as in the ban on uncovering the nakedness of a wife.

Now let’s look at the verse in question:

Leviticus 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex [her], to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life [time].

To uncover whose nakedness? If we are using the context of the verses that precede Leviticus 18:18 then we are forced to specify that the “her” is the current wife. Like this:

Leviticus 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex [your wife], to uncover [your wife’s] nakedness, beside the other in her life [time].

You see, the wife of your sister is “your wife’s nakedness.” In other words, it is incestuous.

This case could be put on a test as follows:

Question: What is the only incestuous relationship that ceases to be incestuous after the death of your wife?

Answer: Marriage to your wife’s sister.

Note: Copyright 2007 Don Milton All Rights Reserved.
All Copyright Laws Apply – Thou Shalt Not Steal

Martin Luther often put a political spin on religious ideas as you will see from reading the following letter in which he and his fellow theologians gave consent to a polygamous marriage. I have only included the last portion of that letter as it includes the sections where Luther and his fellow theologians gave their approval of that polygamous marriage. The letter was written and signed by Luther and other well known theologians of the reformation, some of whom attended the marriage as well. Enjoy reading.

XXI. But after all, if your Highness is fully resolved to marry a second wife, we judge it ought to be done secretly, as we have said with respect to the dispensation demanded on the same account, that is, that none but the person you shall wed, and a few trusty persons, know of the matter, and they, too, obliged to secrecy under the seal of confession. Hence no contradiction nor scandal of moment is to be apprehended ; for it is no extraordinary thing for Princes to keep concubines; and though the vulgar should be scandalized thereat, the more intelligent would doubt of the truth, and prudent persons would approve of this moderate kind of life, preferably to adultery, and other brutal actions. There is no need of being much concerned for what men will say, provided all goes right with conscience. So far do we approve it, and in those circumstances only by us specified ; for the Gospel hath neither recalled nor forbid what was permitted in the law of Moses with respect to marriage. Jesus Christ has not changed the external economy, but added justice only, and life everlasting, for reward. He teaches the true way of obeying God, and endeavors to repair the corruption of nature.

XXII. Your Highness hath therefore, in this writing, not only the approbation [approval] of us all, in case of necessity, concerning what you desire, but also the reflections we have made thereupon; we beseech you to weigh them, as becoming a virtuous, wise, and Christian Prince. We also beg of God to direct all for his glory and your Highness’s salvation.

XXIII. As to your Highness’s thought of communicating this affair to the emperor before it be concluded, it seems to us that this Prince counts adultery among the lesser sort of sins ; and it is very much to be feared lest his faith being of the same stamp with that of the Pope, the Cardinals, the Italians, the Spaniards, and the Saracens, he make light of your Highness’s proposal, and turn it to his own advantage by amusing your Highness with vain words. We know he is deceitful and perfidious, and as nothing of the German in him.

XXIV. Your Highness sees, that he uses no sincere endeavor to redress the grievances of Christendom; that he leaves the Turk unmolested, and labors for nothing but to divide the empire, that he may raise up the house of Austria on its ruins. It is therefore very much to be wished that no Christian Prince would give into his pernicious schemes. May God preserve your Highness. We are most ready to serve your Highness.

Given at Wittenberg the Wednesday after the feast of Saint Nicholas, 1539. Your Highness’s most humble, and most obedient subjects and servants,


I George Nuspicher, Notary Imperial, bear testimony by this present act, written and signed with my own hand, that I have transcribed this present copy from the true original which is in Melancthon’s own handwriting, and hath been faithfully preserved to this present time, at the request of the most serene Prince of Hesse ; and have examined with the greatest exactness every line and every word, and collated them with the same original; and have found them conformable thereunto, not only in the things themselves, but also in the signs manual, and have delivered the present copy in five leaves of good paper, whereof I bear witness. GEORGE NUSPICHER, Notary.

You have just read the letter of Martin Luther, et al, concerning the proposed marriage of Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, with Margaret de Saal. It was taken from:
The History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches By Jacques Benigne Bossuet – Bishop of Meaux,
“One of his most Christian Majesty’s Honorable Privy Council, Heretofore Preceptor to the Dauphin, and Chief Almoner to the Dauphiness.”
In Two Volumes – Translated from the last French Edition. VOLUME I Published 1836

The Marriage Contract of Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, with Margaret de Saal.
In the name of God, Amen. Be it known to all those, as well in general as in particular, who shall see, hear, or read this public instrument, that in the year 1540, on Wednesday, the fourth day of the month of March, at two o’clock or thereabouts, in the afternoon, the thirteenth year of the Indiction, and the twenty-first of the reign of the most puissant and most victorious Emperor Charles V, our most gracious lord; the most serene Prince and Lord Philip Landgrave of Hesse, Count of Catznelenbogen, of Dietz, of Ziegenhain, and Nidda, with some of his Highness’s Counsellors, on one side, and the good and virtuous Lady Margaret de Saal with some of her relations, on the other side, have appeared before me, Notary, and witness underwritten, in the City of Rotenburg, in the castle of the same city, with the design and will publicly declared before me, Notary public and witness, to unite themselves by marriage; and accordingly my most gracious Lord and Prince Philip the Landgrave hath ordered this to be proposed by the Reverend Denis Melander, preacher to his Highness, much to the sense as follows :” Whereas the eye of God searches all things, and but little escapes the knowledge of men, his Highness declares that his will is to wed the said Lady Margaret de Saal, although the Princess his wife be still living, and that this action may not be imputed to inconstancy or curiosity; to avoid scandal and maintain the honor of the said Lady, and the reputation of her kindred, his Highness makes oath here before God, and upon his soul and conscience, that he takes her to wife through no levity, nor curiosity, nor from any contempt of law, or superiors; but that he is obliged to it by such important, such inevitable necessities of body and conscience, that it is impossible for him to save either body or soul, without adding another wife to his first. All which his Highness hath laid before many learned, devout, prudent, and Christian preachers, and consulted them upon it. And these great men, after examining the motives represented to them, have advised his Highness to put his soul and conscience at ease by this double marriage. And the same cause and the same necessity have obliged the most serene Princess, Christina Duchess of Saxony, his Highness’s first lawful wife, out of her great prudence and sincere devotion, for which she is so much to be commended, freely to consent and admit of a partner, to the end that the soul and body of her most dear spouse may run no further risk, and the glory of God may be increased, as the deed written with this Princess’s own hand sufficiently testifies. And lest occasion of scandal be taken from its not being the custom to have two wives, although this be Christian and lawful in the present case, his Highness will not solemnize these nuptials in the ordinary way, that is, publicly before many people, and with the wonted ceremonies, with the said Margaret de Saal; but both the one and the other will join themselves in wedlock, privately and without noise, in presence only of the witnesses underwritten.” After Melander had finished his discourse, the said Philip and the said Margaret accepted of each other for husband and wife, and promised mutual fidelity in the name of God. The said Prince hath required of me, Notary underwritten, to draw him one or more collated copies of this contract, and hath also promised, on the word and faith of a prince, to me a public person, to observe it inviolably, always and without alteration, in presence of the Reverend and most learned masters Philip Melancthon, Martin Bucer, Denis Melander; and likewise in the presence of the illustrious and valiant Eberhard de Than, counsellor of his electoral Highness of Saxony, Herman de Malsberg, Herman de Hundelshausen, the Lord John Fegg of the Chancery, Rudolph Schenck ; and also in the presence of the most honorable and most virtuous Lady Anne of the family of Miltitz, widow of the late John de Saal, and mother of the spouse, all in quality of requisite witnesses for the validity of the present act. And I Balthasar Rand, of Fuld, Notary public imperial, who was present at the discourse, instruction, marriage, espousals, and union aforesaid, with the said witnesses, and have heard and seen all that passed, have written and subscribed the present contract, being requested so to do; and set to it the usual seal, for a testimony of the truth thereof. BALTHASAR RAND.

You have just read the polygamous Marriage Contract of Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, with Margaret de Saal. It was taken from:
The History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches By Jacques Benigne Bossuet – Bishop of Meaux,
“One of his most Christian Majesty’s Honorable Privy Council, Heretofore Preceptor to the Dauphin, and Chief Almoner to the Dauphiness.”
In Two Volumes – Translated from the last French Edition. VOLUME I Published 1836

A final note concerning the polygamous marriage of Philip, Landgrave of Hesse. There cannot be a claim that this was simply a divorce which was called polygamy. Philip’s wives lived with him and both had relations with him. During the seven years following Philip’s polygamous marriage, nine children were born to him by his wives; Christina of Saxony and Margaret de Saal. Each one of these nine children was conceived after the polygamous marriage had taken place. Between his two wives, Philip had a total of nineteen children; twelve sons and seven daughters. May we all be so blessed!

   “We are not going to violate their civil rights until we have an outcry, a complaint, and I’ve said that from day one.” Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran

   Another way to read Doran’s statement is this:

   “After we have an outcry, a complaint: WE WILL VIOLATE THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS.

   The likelihood that a child will be abused while in [Texas] foster care is greater than if they were left where they are. (Bolton, Laner, and Gai, 1981; Pryor, 1991; Spencer and Knudsen, 1992.)1
For the government to remove five hundred and thirty four American (534) citizens in Texas from their homes and put them into the care of homosexuals, fornicators, adulteresses, and worse — teens with STDs is; well, you tell me what it is. When historians look back at the draconian measures taken against non-Muslims practicing polygamy versus the absolutely blind eye that is turned to Muslims practicing polygamy, and practicing it in nearly every neighborhood in the nation, they will wonder how ours could have ever been called a “Christian” nation.
Exodus 23:1&2
Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.
Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; (stealing children) neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment. (trial by the media)
Our streets are littered with the broken lives of teen prostitutes who may be abused one thousand times with impunity while teens who gave themselves to their one and only husband in purity are locked up. Their crime? Their husband failed to get a government consent form signed and notarized and then presented to a judge, despite the fact that their parents gave their full and complete approval for the marriage. Of course the parents gave their approval, they’re part of that same community!
Before proceeding, we must address one issue which has inflamed the discussion of polygamy, so-called “underage girls” marrying fifty (50) year old men. The first cue that such phrases are spoken by stupid people is the redundancy of “underage girls.” The second is that underage is a government definition and has nothing to do with biology. According to the most simple logic, a girl is a girl until her first menstruation. After her first menstruation she is biologically a woman. Furthermore, it has been a long standing legal precedent that by the age of thirteen an individual has reached the age of reason where they will be held responsible for their deliberate actions. Pull out your homeowners insurance policy and you will find a statement very similar to this. “We will not pay for injuries or damages that are caused intentionally, UNLESS, the injury or damage is caused by a child 12 years of age or younger.” So we have two definitions, one of them biological and the other psychological which put the age of thirteen as the age at which a female is capable both biologically and psychologically of giving consent. The Apostle Paul says, “I will, therefore, that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.” 1 Timothy 5:14 And again Paul says, “She shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. 1 Timothy 2:15 Saved from what? — saved from a life of fornication so that the adversary (Satan or anyone else who opposes righteousness) may not have any reason to attack the virtue of the young women. The Greek word translated as “younger women” is “neos” which means recently come into being, young, youthful, new and in the context of marriage Paul is speaking of women who have recently become women. Ah, so Paul himself says that women should marry shortly after their first menstrual cycle which was also in accord with the Roman requirement that upon reaching puberty every citizen must marry.2 Need I remind you that it’s America’s current five year gap between biologically becoming a woman and legally becoming a woman (The Marriage Gap) that sets in motion the pattern of fornication from which few American women ever escape? Even then, they escape only by doing what Paul instructed them to do in the first place, by marrying.

Click Here to see a PDF of a typical insurance policy.
Search for “Voluntary Payments” after you have the Insurance Policy in your browser.

   Another aspect of the current mob mentality concerning young women marrying fifty (50) year old men is that the public just cannot believe that a thirteen year old woman would be interested in a fifty year old man. Have they never heard of Mick Jagger, he’s sixty five years old and man is he UUUGLY! Yet he still has teens swooning over him. The fact is, in the enclosed society of the FLDS, the fifty (50) year old men are the MOST attractive men to their young women. They strut their little industrial complex with a charisma that politicians would envy. Their families are large and happy. They’re famous teachers in their community. They are fearless in the face of mainstream society, willing to risk prison for their beliefs. These men are not just desirable to the young women in their society, they’re what our mainstream whores would call HOT. (A whore is a woman who has lost her virginity willingly without wedlock.) But here is the issue that EVERY person who claims they are a Christian MUST deal with. The Bible defines marriage. If these women were given to their husbands by their fathers as wives then they indeed are wives and anyone who encourages them to be with another man is guilty of causing them to become adulteresses for they can only be released to marry another man by their husband with his giving them a Bill of Divorcement. If you are one of the mob running to encourage them to forsake their first husband and take another man then you are an accomplice to adultery. Jesus was very strict concerning marriage and He lived in an age where the average woman married at thirteen. At the time of Jesus, the Roman law, referred to as the Lex Papia Poppaea,2 decreed punishments such as the loss of inheritance rights for women who remained single after having attained puberty. Jesus never criticized that law which commanded that a woman old enough to bear children get married. Why would he? That law prevented pre-marital sex. So when Jesus made his pronouncements on marriage those words applied to all marriages, including those with thirteen year old women. Here is what Jesus said, “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is so divorced commits adultery.” Matthew 5:32 The same goes for you; if you cause a woman to be put away from her husband then you also are causing her to commit adultery. This is not a social issue. This is a theological issue and this is an issue of the right of religious groups to separate themselves from fornicators such as nearly every American reading this is.
Still another hysteria inducing fact is that the Eldorado polygamists had a room in their temple for consummating marriages. For those of you who are so brainwashed by the Roman Catholic marriage ceremonies that today’s Protestants gleefully imitate, every typical marriage in the Bible involves the guardian giving the bride and the groom taking her to his tent. What in the world do you think the implication is of what happens in the tent! Duh, what in the world is marriage? Are you dense or something? Marriage involves a willing giving of the bride and a consummation of that marriage. Without the consummation it is not a marriage even according to government law. The Bridal Canopy3 is a remnant of the Bridal Tent3 which was used by the Jews in times past. This Bridal Canopy3 is used in Jewish marriage ceremonies till this day. If you’re going to attack the Eldorado group for having what amounts to a Bridal Tent3 then just remember that your attack is anti-Semitic in its roots.
For those of you who think that the anti-polygamy hysteria is some new thing, please note that anti-polygamy laws have their roots in anti-Semitism and the two Semite groups that have been the brunt of this bigotry are the descendants of Abraham — Jacob (the Jews), and Ishmael (today’s Muslims). Both have a long record of regulated polygamy and both have been the butt of bigoted jokes and worse. It is hate, and hate alone that fuels this group think against polygamy. One thousand years ago Rabbenu Gershom declared that polygamy would be forbidden to Jews in Christian nations. Why did he do this? Well you guess. We see among us five hundred and thirty four American citizens ripped from their homes because of anti-polygamy hatred. If it were not hate that drives this anti-polygamy hysteria then the subject could be discussed openly and without bigoted jokes, accusations, and outright lies.
To understand the hatred, let me give you an example. Let’s say that you and your family chose to live in a neighborhood of five hundred plus like minded Christians and you were all practicing monogamists. Let’s say that there was one sixteen year old teenager among you who called the police and said that one of the people in the neighborhood had sex with her after a private marriage ceremony when she was fifteen years old and that her parents knew about it and had approved of it but that they had not obtained a judge’s waiver for their daughter to get married at that age. Do you think it would be fair for the government to come into your neighborhood and arrest (that’s what it is no matter what else you claim) to arrest, more than five hundred of your neighbors, fellow Americans, yes, AMERICAN citizens, in the largest group arrest in the country in years? Do you think it would be right to take the children of your neighbors who had nothing to do with the fifteen year old’s marriage and place those children, all virgins, among some of the most notorious teens of the country? It is a fact that many of the teens in foster care have been placed there because of their own delinquency. Is it right for virgins who have never left their household to be placed among such teens? I have cried over this. If you haven’t, may God have mercy on your soul. If you say, “but they were taken out of the homes of polygamists,” that’s exactly my point. Your hatred for polygamists is so great that you think it’s perfectly ok to rip people out of their homes, for what? For being polygamists just like so many Old Testament saints as well as many in the New Testament? Don’t you realize that many of Paul’s contemporaries were polygamist Christians? If that was not the case then why would Paul have exempted men who were not the “husband of one wife” from the thankless job of Elder, Bishop, and Deacon? He exempted the polygamists because they were being fruitful and multiplying in compliance with God’s command and fulfilling that duty was enough to exempt them from unwanted tasks that were to be assigned by Timothy and the other apostles. If the selection was to be only those who were “husbands of one wife” then surely there were enough men with more than one wife that Paul thought it necessary to make such an exemption from troublesome lower offices within the church. Yes, Elder, Bishop, and Deacon were not high offices or they would have been called of God, not appointed by man. Click here to read my article entitled: “The Key to Understanding The Husband of One Wife.”
Now, back to Texas. Isn’t it Texas where the governor assumes that teen girls are so promiscuous that he wants to force them to take anti-std immunizations? So the government bans teen marriage, a godly outlet for young women who choose marriage, yet the government not only permits but encourages them to fornicate? Not only does the government encourage their fornicating but they make it legal for them to fornicate with boys who have no ability to support them but make it illegal for stable bread winners to court them and marry them, even when the parents and the girls have given their consent as part of their system of stated community values. What? This has got to be the craziest system man has ever invented; to reward women who have sex with the boys who are least able to support them and penalize those who choose to marry men!

BREAKING NEWS— Obama State Delegate for Colorado, Rozita Swinton, is the same Rozita Swinton who was arrested for calling in the hoax that triggered the Eldorado raid against peaceful American citizens. Article continues below as originally written on April 7, 2008.

   The quite probably non-existent girl4 who started the Eldorado hysteria is quoted as saying, “Church members told her that if she leaves the ranch, outsiders will … force her to cut her hair, (TRUE) to wear make up (TRUE) and [different] clothes (TRUE) and to have sex with lots of men. (TRUE)” What is it that is not true about the alleged victim’s statement concerning American culture and the environment of foster care today? Everything that this probably non-existent victim was told about the outside world was true. Who is the abuser in this situation? The fact is that American women think it is better to have sex with lots of men before settling on one. Don’t you tell me anything different, you fake! Were you a virgin on your wedding night? Look at the actual behavior of people if you want to understand a culture, don’t look at what the people in a culture say. We call that baloney. They’re full of baloney, spelled BS. Any anthropologist with training knows this. You can go into a country where they say cannibalism is evil but if they’re eating their neighbor’s liver, don’t believe them! When Americans say they believe in waiting till marriage for their first sex, don’t believe them. Over ninety percent of Americans have pre-marital sex.5 Face it, we live in a country that says one thing about sex and does another. Forty-five percent of the country says fornication is evil but they fornicate anyway and forty-five percent of the country says fornication is good and they practice what they preach, at least concerning fornication. Now we find America in a situation where its filthy fornicators find a culture within theirs that says and does what it preaches and the fornicators send in armed government officials to arrest and detain five hundred and thirty four fellow American citizens in the most blatant violation of civil rights this country has seen in over fifty years. The pundits are afraid to discuss the issue in a clear and rational way because of the irrational hysteria generated in America by the mere mention of polygamy. Cowards! America’s taboo against polygamy has few rivals in the modern world. Americans are willing to suspend the constitution when it comes to polygamists but wait, it’s white polygamists who are really the focus of their hatred. “They got our white women in there! They better let lose of ’em or we’ll string em up? What white man would do such a thing as have more than one wife! It’s plain uncivilized.” I can hear them now, their mouths frothing as they hold up their pitch forks… oh yes, it’s 9mm weapons they use today. As for the five hundred and thirty- four innocent American citizen detainees in Texas, they remain jailed. What else do you call it when you are held against your own will?
To quote a man who I was personally introduced to as a paid staffer on his campaign in 1980; “Government isn’t the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Nearly every blessed mother in the Bible was a teen bride, usually married within a year or two of her first menstruation. Throughout history the average age of a princess has been between thirteen and eighteen and the same has been true for the common man. Men who break the law when they could have simply gotten a government license to marry their young bride are foolish but they are not brutes. Teen marriage license infractions, for that is all the Texas case concerns, are now being used to prosecute polygamists since prosecutors know that the next polygamy prosecution will be struck down by the Supreme Court. According to Texas law the only thing that stands between a woman under the age of sixteen (16) and her man receiving a marriage license is a court order. Take a look at the statute for yourselves.

Texas Marriage License Requirements

   It is of note that only after the FLDS moved to Eldorado, were Texas marriage laws changed to discriminate against them, raising the age without a court order to marry from fourteen to sixteen. Prior to the 2005 law being passed a woman age fourteen or older could marry simply by producing a properly executed parental consent form. No court order was required. The requirement of a court order was pass by the Texas legislature for the specific purpose of discriminating against the FLDS so that such court orders could be issued for marriage license requests made by any citizens of Texas EXCEPT unless that citizen were a member of the FLDS.
If men who marry teen brides are brutes then so was President James Monroe who married his seventeen year old bride, Elizabeth Kortright as well as President Andrew Johnson who married his then sixteen or seventeen year old bride, Elizabeth McCardle. Neither did Monroe nor Johnson lift so much as one finger to get a license for their marriages. In fact, the marriage dates of the Presidents before the mid-eighteen hundreds are hard to determine since marriage licenses were not required in most localities. The declaration of the man and woman that they were husband and wife was deemed sufficient. Many states still give an exemption to marriage license requirements to Quakers. If men who marry cousins are brutes then Democrat President Martin Van Buren must also be a brute for he married his first cousin, Hannah Hoes. First cousin marriage which is a marriage that is permitted by the Bible is also the butt of anti-Semitic jokes. If men who marry women who are much younger than they are then President John Tyler must also be a brute for he married the beautiful, Julia Gardiner, who was thirty years younger than he was. Likewise, Grover Cleveland, at the age of forty nine, married Frances Folsom who was just twenty-two years old. June/December marriages are also a favorite topic of jokes by bigots who want to put their noses into the business of other peoples’ marriages. This bigotry usually contains slanders against those who might marry their cousins like Jacob did, or who might marry a woman much younger, like Jacob did, or who might marry a woman who was under the age of eighteen, like Jacob did. The fact is, such marriages tend only to come to the attention of the public when they are done by polygamists or when they are done by members of religious groups that condemn fornication and homosexuality. The public considers it vulgar when a monogamist marries his cousin, a teen, or someone much younger but the public considers it evil when a polygamist or religious fanatic does the same.
Must I bring up the fact that it was King David, the polygamist, who still had enough time with all his wives to write the beautiful Psalms. Do you forget that King Solomon still had time to write the godly and perfect Proverbs and the Song of Songs? Yes, it is a fact that the most poetic and beautiful love poem in the Bible was written by Solomon, the world’s most famous polygamist. Furthermore, this King Solomon, wrote Ecclesiastes which was taken by a Sixties band for its melodic words -“To everything – turn, turn, turn There is a season – turn, turn, turn And a time for every purpose under heaven.”  Well, it is the season to start recognizing that in a marriage, a man is joined to each of his wives by God, not by man. This is what many of our presidents recognized. Those of you who do not trust God to join you in marriage need our prayers. I don’t expect my fellow Americans to agree with me. My fellow Americans refuse to hang the pornographers from the lamp posts along side the CEOs of the major hotel chains in America who pipe in pornography to their hotel rooms. Americans would prefer that one polygamist be sent to prison than one hundred million fornicators be told that sex outside of marriage is a sin but let me put you on notice. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, yes, Jesus Himself, is going to judge you and that day is not far away and He will punish you. Repent. He will punish you for forbidding what the Bible permits and for causing grief and suffering with your backwards and primitive, yes primitive and barbaric laws. For you reward young women with your welfare state who have sex with boys that cannot support them and you punish the wise virgins who choose marriage with an older stable man.
1 Timothy 4:3 1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

[1] The Welfare of Children by Duncan Lindsay – Published 2003

[2] Lex Papia Poppaea, A.D. 9, sometimes known as Jus Trium Liberorum granted special privileges to men with many children and punished celibacy by limiting the rights of single men. This can account for Paul’s discussions on celibacy which should not be taken as encouraging celibacy but as defending the right of a man or woman to voluntarily choose marriage instead of feeling compelled to marry by government decree. The Lex Papia Poppaea decreed punishments such as the loss of inheritance rights for those who remained single after having attained puberty up to the age of fifty for women and sixty for men. A man or woman was given one hundred days to get married upon finding out they were the beneficiary of an inheritance or forfeit the inheritance. There are many more interesting details of this Roman law which I’ll address in another article.

[3] Bridal Tent – “They pitched the tent, the bridal tent, of the Semites, which has survived in the canopy of the Jewish wedding ceremony to our own day.” The International Critical Commentary – A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Books of Samuel by Henry Preserved Smith – Professor of Biblical History and Interpretation in Amherst College Published in 1902

[4] Rozita Swinton has been arrested and is currently being investigated for pretending to be a sixteen (16) year old woman; that same “sixteen year old ‘girl'” who was the alibi for the Texas Jack Booted Thugs’ raid on a peaceful neighborhood in Eldorado to steal over four hundred (400) children from their parents and place them with fornicators, homosexuals, and adulteresses. Rozita E Swinton is also listed on the El Paso County Colorado Democrats website as being a State Delegate from Precinct 269. I called the El Paso County Colorado Democrat Headquarters and spoke with Carol, the woman who answered the telephone, and when I asked her whether that Rozita Swinton who is listed on their website as a state delegate for Obama is the same Rozita Swinton who was arrested for being the polygamy hoax caller she said, yes.

As he that bindeth a stone in a sling, so [is] he that giveth honour to a fool.
Solomon — Proverbs 26:8
The Texas CPS and Jack Booted Authorities gave honor to a fool, now the ammunition that they intended to fire at their opponents is blowing up in their faces!

[5] Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954 2003 Lawrence B. Finer, PhD

Note: Copyright 2008 – Don Milton – All Rights Reserved
Pastor Don Milton is an Evangelical Christian

If God Made Two Wives For Adam

If God Made Two Wives For Adam
Then pious men would say;
“Upon two wives each Christian man
Must certainly lay claim!”

Now if a Christian man
Would take himself but one,
They’d charge him with monogamy
And soon he would be hung.

Dare he take more than two, such shame
For Adam took but twain.
They’d hang him high upon a tree
‘For two made He, not three.’

If God made two wives for Adam
Then Christians would make war
On heathens who dared take just one.
“Two wives!” the cry, “Not less! Not more!”

So God in his great wisdom tells
Of just one wife for Adam.
If more there were, kept secret still
Lest men misread God’s perfect will

What helpmeet could God have created
To prove some men be unequally mated?
Should He have made a fraction more
Yea, 1.1 or 1.4?

Nay, He created one
No precedent to set
And if today one’s not enough
There’s plenty more than that.

So finally, I am left to ask,
If you cannot read minds,
How do you know our Lord’s intent
Of God – Creator of mankind?

Note: Copyright 2007 – Don Milton – All Rights Reserved
Pastor Don Milton is an Evangelical Christian

Since it was a Baptist Church in Eldorado, Texas that assisted the Texas CPS in stealing over four hundred (400) children from their parents I thought it would be appropriate to provide you with the latest news about Baptist activity in that area of the nation.

Our Spurious Reporter* in Eldorado Texas overheard this conversation between the local Baptist Preacher and one of the members of his church.

So what’s the problem with your daughter?

Well, she doesn’t do anything I tell her. She wears her great-grandmother’s clothing and claims virginity is something to save for her future husband.

How could she possibly think such a thing?

Well, she’s been reading the Bible a lot lately.

How in the world did she get a Bible? Don’t tell me. She got hold of both the New and the Old Testaments?

That’s right, she got that Jew Bible, the Old Testament, but certainly not from our church. You only hand out New Testaments and your own books and writings. You never supply a new believer with an entire Bible. When a young person responds to the alter call you do your best to make them a member and get them into activities with the youth group. That’s where my daughter belongs, with a bunch of young boys who’ve got more testosterone than they can handle. We can’t trust the Bible to steer her right. We’ve got to get her in with some good Christian boys.

That’s true, but I still don’t understand. What’s gotten into your daughter to cause her to read the Bible and to save her virginity as a gift for her future husband.

I don’t know Preacher. I just can’t put a handle on it. We’ve brought her up right. We even took her to the doctor so she could get on the pill but she refuses to take it. And then you remember how she had an allergy to Ritalin? The doctor says she can’t be put on any mind controlling drugs and we haven’t been able to stop her religious urges and it’s getting worse. She’s going off to Bible meetings every night.

Ah, sounds like she’s in some kind of cult.

Yeah, cult. That’s it. They rent the local Methodist church when it’s not in use.

Oh, you’ve got to be kidding! A cult is meeting at the Methodist church? What do they call themselves?

Let’s see now, oh yes, Bible believing Christians, that’s it. They’re Bible believing Christians. They’ve even got a website.

Well, here’s the plan. You just call up Texas Child Protective Services and tell them that you truly believe that your daughter became a woman on the day she had her first menstrual cycle. They’ll come over and pick her up and put her with a good family, one that believes in fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. Oh, don’t worry about your safety. They won’t touch you. It’s the children they want.

Note: Note:Both the Old Testament and the New Testament are God’s word. If you or your church teach that the Old Testament is of less value than the New Testament then it is very likely that you are a Jew hater and that you consider the people of the Old Testament to be less human than those born after the New Testament was written. Repent!

spurious: pretended

Copyright 2008 – Don Milton – All Rights Reserved
Pastor Don Milton is an Evangelical Christian

Mark 10:11 is confusing to many students of the Bible. In that verse, Jesus presents us with a syllogism. A syllogism is a logical argument that has the form; If A and B, then C. Here is the syllogism Jesus presented in Mark 10:11:

Whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another,
[A]                                         [B]
committeth adultery against her.{DBY}

Notice that the Bible DOES NOT SAY:

Whosoever shall not put away his wife, and shall marry another,
[NOT A]                                    [B]
committeth adultery against her.

Since this example is not found anywhere in the Bible, we lie if we claim that a man who has not put away his wife, and marries another, commits adultery. Only when a man marries a new wife, having put away another wife, has he committed “adultery against her.” William Tyndale, the first English translator of the Bible, renders it, “breaketh wedlocke to her warde” which is synonymous with “causeth her to commit adultery.” Mark 10:11 is simply one of the many examples of putting away “for reasons other than fornication.” Putting away, “saving for the cause of fornication,” is forbidden. Marrying a new wife, without putting away another wife, is not forbidden.

Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

For those of you who are having a hard time grasping this I am adding additional material here that is not in my novel.

Let’s look at a real life example of a logical syllogism.

[Whoever borrows his friend’s car] and [sells that car as his own]
A                                                                 B
[commits fraud.]
From this syllogism, we can infer the example below is true:
Henry borrowed his friend’s car and sold that car as his own.
A                                          B
Henry committed fraud.
But when one of the antecedents (A or B) is not true then the conclusion (C) does not follow.
Henry bought his friend’s car and sold that car as his own.
NOT A                                   B
Henry committed fraud.
In the second example, A is not true and therefore C cannot be proven. Henry bought his friend’s car. He did not borrow it. So although B is true, he sold it as his own. Selling your own car is permissible so to charge Henry with fraud is unwarranted.

NOW LISTEN: The only people who think that Henry committed fraud in the second sentence are people who grew up in communist countries where strict laws against buying and selling have short circuited their brains into making them think that any activity involving buying and selling is forbidden.

Look at where you live. If your country has strict laws against polygamy then your brain has likely been short circuited to make you think that even an illogical argument against polygamy is logical simply because you’ve been improperly brought up to believe that is is forbidden. Remember, on the topic of buying and selling a car, you completely understood that the change of A to Not A (not borrowed but purchased) made the sale completely legitimate. Apply that to the topic of putting away and marriage. Only putting away for the purpose of marrying is forbidden. Marrying without putting away is not forbidden. Of course a woman who takes another husband commits adultery and there are verses against a married woman being with more than one man.

Romans 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

The following is a typical course description for Philosophy 101 for a first year Pre-Theology student. It includes an introduction to syllogisms. You do not have to be a theologian, or a linguist to understand that [If A and B then C] DOES NOT PROVE [If Not A and B then C.] In fact, it doesn’t even hint at C. You simply must have studied one paragraph from any first year logic book or even a dictionary to understand this.

PHIL101 An Introduction to Philosophical Argumentation
3 credits. This is an introductory course in logic and critical thinking as practiced by Western philosophers since the time of Aristotle, including the nature and uses of formal arguments or syllogisms; truth, validity, and soundness; the distinction between deduction and induction; and the nature and misuses of informal fallacies.

Note: Pastor Don Milton graduated from the University of Washington in 1987 with a Bachelor of Arts in Linguistics. He applies his knowledge of linguistics and logic to analyze and preach the Bible.

The above was taken from footnote 9, Page 270 of Prince of Sumba, Husband to Many Wives. Copyright 2009 – Don Milton – All Rights Reserved

The chart below can be deceiving. To get the actual percent of women’s devoutness compared with men’s devoutness you must divide the women’s percent by the men’s percent. As follows:

53/46 = 1.127

In other words, 13 percent more Christian women attend weekly versus men attending weekly. If you look at daily prayer, it’s even more startling.

61/51 = 1.196

In other words, 20 percent more Christian women pray daily than Christian men!

68/61 = 1.114

In other words, 11 percent more Christian women than Christian men consider religion important.

There is one thing they did not poll and that was Bible reading. I would like to know what percentage of women and men have read the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation at least twice.

Among Christians, women are more religious than men on all measures; gender gaps among Muslims are less consistent

Who was the first woman after Eve’s disgrace to be given the HONOR of being mentioned in Scripture? and the second woman after Eve to be given that HONOR? and the third woman after Eve to be given that HONOR? Of whose family were these women members?

The answer is that they were the two wives of Lamech and one of his daughters. Lamech is the prophet who established the Castle Doctrine and the Stand Your Ground Doctrine of self defense. He prophesied that he [an innocent man] is worthy of seventy times seven times avenging since [guilty] Cain was worthy of seven times avenging. Lamech’s wife Adah was the grandmother of those who dwell in tents and raise livestock (shepherds) as well as those who play harp and organ (musicians) whose talent was passed down to King David and Lamech’s wife Zillah was the mother of the first teacher mentioned, Tubalcain, who taught how to produce brass and iron products, which would later be used for wheels, machines, and jewelry. Now women are rarely mentioned in the Bible but in the case of Lamech it is not only the two wives of Lamech who are showcased but one of his daughters as well, Naamah! Zillah’s daughter, Naamah is mentioned although nothing further is said about her. HOWEVER, there is a principle that is frequently found in the Bible and it is this; when something is mentioned three times it is affirming it as very important.

In the paragraph directly following the story of Lamech’s wives, the wife of Adam who bore Seth is not even mentioned! If it was Eve, her name was not mentioned. If she was one of Adam’s many daughters or even Naamah, the daughter of Lamech, nobody knows for the name of the one who bore Seth is simply not mentioned. Keep in mind that the birth of Seth comes 130 years after Adam was created so if you’re thinking that when it says, “And Adam knew his wife again” that it’s talking of Eve, there is a only a minuscule chance that you’re right.

Genesis 4:19-22 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one [was] Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and [of such as have] cattle. And his brother’s name [was] Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain [was] Naamah.

Genesis 4:24-25 If Cain shall be avenged seven times, truly Lamech seventy times seven. And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, [said she], hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Today’s Christians often slander Lamech, claiming he was a murderer. God will avenge them 70 times 7 times. I would not like to be them. I said Lamech is a prophet because he gave the first part of the answer that Jesus later gave about forgiveness. You must forgive 70 times 7 times so that you don’t accidentally slander because in that case you will be avenged by God 70 times 7 time. Ask your Lamech hating Christian friends whether they’ve ever heard of the Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground Doctrine of even borders or property rights since Lamech being mentioned in a chain of inheritance from the first earthly ruler, Adam, was a ruler himself with the rights of a ruler to enforce borders as well as property rights.

Proverbs 5:18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice from the wife of thy youth.

Brothers and sisters in Christ, we have been misled. The preposition that occurs before “the wife” in the above sentence is NOT “with”! It is as I have written above, “from” as in the sentence “He ate the entire menu from steak to string beans.” To put it another way, “He ate the entire menu starting with the steak all the way to the string beans.”

In other words, it means “starting with” so that a better translation in modern English would be:
“Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice starting with the wife of thy youth.”
Keep in mind that Solomon had just been warning in verses 3-17 against going with whores and now he is contrasting that a man must instead rejoice, i.e., take pleasure in, his wives, starting with the wife of his youth, i.e., his first wife. There is absolutely no emphasis in the original verse on any exclusivity to a first wife because the word “with” does not even occur in the Hebrew. The word is  “from” as in, “starting with.” I discovered this in my Anderson Forbes Phrase Marker Analysis of the Hebrew Bible. Do not be fooled. One wife and one wife only is NEVER taught in the Bible.

It’s impossible not to SEE the implication in the sentence when it is properly translated. “rejoice starting with the wife of thy youth….” till the wife you take when you’re an old guy. It also has an inference, that you must indeed rejoice with your first wife! Starting with your first wife!

Yes, it’s true that God commanded Hosea to marry a wife of whoredoms. Hosea 1:2
My take on the verses concerning Hosea’s marriage is that Hosea’s act of charity was commanded as a way to provide a real life representation of God’s forgiveness of His people. The exception does not make the rule and the exception here is an exception to being wise. As Christians we’re called to conduct ourselves wisely and marrying a wife of whoredoms has got to be one of the most foolish things a man can do. Hosea was commanded to do that foolish thing so in his case it was not foolish considering our Sovereign God who commanded him had the power to strike him dead and throw him in hell.

I’m aware that the matriarchal Christian churches of the world are full of adulterous men. It is the obvious outcome of the matriarchal Christian’s idolatrous worship of women. When a man realizes his “god” (woman) is not perfect, he searches for another idol. He did indeed bow in worship of her when he proposed and when he finally realizes that she does not provide what she as his “god” was hoped to provide, he turns and searches for other gods. That is what happens daily in the churches of America where matriarchy is the cornerstone instead of the True Cornerstone, Christ.

1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded.

As for verses specifically castigating men, there are certainly many such verses. Do a search of any online Bible for adulterer, adulteress, adultery and you will find dozens of verses on that subject, many condemning men. There are two aspects to impurity; one is impurity in general, i.e., fornication, and the other is specifically forbidden impurities such as adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, e.g. laying with the sister of your wife, or with your aunt, or half sister, and so forth, all practices of Egypt and the other countries from which the Israelites were brought out safely. Those sins carry their specific penalties. If God’s Word were carried out as all Christians should desire, the majority of death penalty convictions for sexual impurity would fall upon men because added to their half of the adultery cases there are upwards of ten percent of men committing homosexual acts.

See Leviticus Chapter 18

So if the law of God which certainly brings peace and quiet in the community were followed by the judges today there would be virtually no homosexuals or adulterers left in the churches but the churches are against following the Bible when it comes to sexual impurity. “Wait!” You say, “They are concerned about sexual immorality!” Then my question is, where are the penalties. When a may is found laying with a virgin who is not yet promised in marriage, that man is to take her under his authority as his bride. There are no exceptions to this outside of the incest laws listed in the Bible. Why are men not forced into paying the bride’s price and taking the woman under their authority? Preaching from the pulpit against immorality is not taking a stand against immorality. Enforcing penalties against immorality is taking a stand. If the penalty is death then Christians must treat those committing sins worthy of death as if they were dead, not take them back into fellowship after they have harmed half the congregation with their sinning.

Many Christians have forgotten that we once followed the Bible in the laws of Christian nations yet most Christians have never even been taught the laws of the Bible. But they sure are experts on the laws of their country. Why is this? Well, how about jail? How about fines? How about going before a judge? How about consequences? The churches provide nothing remotely close to biblical consequences for sinful sexual behavior so rather than repair what could be a blessed union, in the case of a man who lays with a virgin, they chastise the man who lays with a virgin, send the young woman out of the congregation, and then forgive the man instead of holding him responsible for becoming her husband, her head. The biblical course of action is clear:

Exodus 22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

Churches that do not enforce God’s merciful law on virgins worship Christ in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Matthew 15:9
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Furthermore, it is common in the matriarchal Christian churches to practice monogamy at home and to practice fornication outside the home. If your church has men having sexual relations with whores*, bringing whoredom upon the land, then they must be punished. Tell your church leaders that you’ll stop tithing until they begin court proceedings against such men to be held by their own church’s bishop(s) and elder(s). There is no other way than withholding tithes to influence the mercenary pastors who teach build the building first and the congregation last.

That said, I disagree with any assertion that men in the churches are committing acts of whoredom at a rate substantially higher than women (if we remove what I’ve already noted on homosexuality) but let’s not quibble about statistics. The fact is, every time that a woman divorces her husband she has committed an act of whoredom because a woman may not unwife herself from her husband. She has put herself under his authority as much as God places a daughter under the authority of her father when she is born. She cannot undo that. 67 percent of all divorces in America are filed by women who refer to themselves as Christians. Only a third of divorces are filed by men. When entire churches and societies believe that the relationship between a man and his woman is breakable by the woman, that entire society is guilty of whoredom. Only a harlot/whore may unloose herself from a man’s authority to go with another man.

Note: Copyright 2011 Pastor Don Milton All Rights Reserved
As always, we appreciate letters of correction. It is not easy to have so many articles without an occasional typo.
*whore – a woman who gives herself sexually to a man without putting herself permanently under his authority. The man who goes with a whore is known as a fornicator and is guilty of the same sin. If the whore is not free to put herself under the authority of the man with whom she is fornicating because of a marriage to another man (legally or not) then she is a whore AND an adulteress and the man who lays with her is a fornicator and an adulterer. The sin of adultery is a capital offense.


Success: To do well and right.

— Pastor Don Milton, Christian Marriage Website Archive