Posted on 04/06/2008 5:27:22 AM PDT by SkyPilot
Local and state officials entered the temple of a secretive polygamist sect late Saturday, said lawmen blockading the road to the YFZ Ranch near Eldorado.
The action comes hours after local prosecutors said officials were preparing for the worst because a group of FLDS members were resisting efforts to search the structure.
The Texas Department of Public Safety trooper and Schleicher County sheriff’s deputy confirmed that officials have entered the temple but said they had no word on whether anything occurred in the effort.
The incursion into the temple caps the three-day saga of the state’s Child Protective Services agency removing at least 183 women and children from the YFZ Ranch since Friday afternoon. Eighteen girls have been placed in state custody since a 16-year-old told authorities she was married to a 50-year-old man and had given birth to his child.
Saturday evening, ambulances were brought in, said Allison Palmer, who as first assistant 51st District attorney, would prosecute any felony crimes uncovered as part of the investigation inside the compound.
“In preparing for entry to the temple, law enforcement is preparing for the worst,” Palmer said Saturday evening. They want to have “medical personnel on hand in case this were to go in a way that no one wants.”
Apparently as a result of action Saturday night at the ranch, about 10:15 p.m. Saturday, a Schleicher County school bus unloaded another group of at least a dozen more women and children from the compound.
Although members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or FLDS, have provided varying degrees of cooperation to the sheriff’s deputies and Texas Rangers searching the compound, all cooperation stopped once authorities tried to search the gleaming white temple that towers over the West Texas scrub, Palmer said.
“There may be those who would oppose (entry) by placing themselves between law enforcement and the place of worship,” Palmer said Saturday afternoon. “If an agreement cannot be reached … law enforcement will have to — as gently and peaceably as possible — make entry into that place.”
Sect members consider the temple, dedicated by then-leader of the sect Warren Jeffs in January 2005 and finished many months later, off-limits to those who are not FLDS members, said Palmer, who prosecutes felony cases in Schleicher County.
Palmer said she didn’t know the size or makeup of the group inside the temple.
The earlier refusal to provide access was even more disconcerting because CPS investigators have yet to identify the 16-year-old girl or her roughly 8-month-old baby among the dozens removed from the compound, Palmer said.
“Anytime someone says, ‘Don’t look here,’” she said, “it makes you concerned that’s exactly where you need to look.”
The girl told authorities in two separate phone calls a day apart that she was married to a 50-year-old man, Dale Barlow, who had fathered her child, Palmer said.
The joint raid included the Texas Rangers, CPS, Schleicher County and Tom Green County sheriff’s deputies and game wardens from the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife.
Although CPS and Department of Public Safety officials have described the compound’s residents as cooperative, Palmer disagreed.
“Things have been a little tense, a little volatile,” she said.
Authorities removed 52 children Friday afternoon and 131 women and children overnight Friday. About 40 of the children are boys, said CPS spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner.
No further children have been taken into state custody since Friday, when 18 girls were judged to have been abused or be at imminent risk for abuse. CPS has found foster homes for the girls, Meisner said, and will place them after concluding its investigation.
Meisner declined to comment on the fate of the 119 other children and said authorities were still searching the ranch for others Saturday evening.
“They’re in the process of looking,” she said. “They’re literally about halfway through.”
Amen!!!!!!!!!! You've hit the nail on the head, great instruction on the TRUE biblical position of polygamy.
And you're right, DU is a lying deceiver. I caught him at this red-handed on another thread, he's not worth the bandwidth to get into debates with, he continually lies or cherry-picks facts with links he posts. Typical of LDS apologists I've found. Its that whole "Lying for the Lord" doctrine.
Like this: Type in < a href="then the url here" >then type the title you want here< /a > without the space before and after < >
Should look like this for example: Expose Romney Video
And let us NOT forget that when Joey started it all - the most current revelation from his lips were in print in Doctrine and Covenants (1835) included a section denying any practice of polygamy:
"Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 247)
This was THE revelation from 1835 to 1876 of God's current and most up to date will for mormons, this is irregardless of OT excuses, this was the law God wanted them to live under. Remarkably, this was a period when polygamy expanded the most.
So this is the prophet we are challenged to abandon Christianity and follow for he alone speaks God's words - polygamy for me but not for thee.
Bingo!
Allow me to give you yet another example: Imagine if you will, for a moment, that you are the God of the universe; God of every planet; God of the earth; Creator of every person. Imagine for a moment you are speaking forth universal eternal truth. And then imagine that someone claims you (as God) made the following “Scriptural” statement:
We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.
Where is this found? Why it’s LDS “Scripture”—Doctrine & Covenants 134:12. It’s LDS “Doctrine” that has never been removed or rescinded!!!
This passages makes it quite clear that although the apostle Paul was one to vie for the religious freedom of Onesimus—and he treated him as a full Christian brother and encouraged Philemon to do the same--somehow, LDS think that "religious freedom" applies to everyone except slaves!
D&C 134:12, written in 1835 pro-slavery America, makes it quite clear that instead of the Mormons having a universal god who issues for eternal truth applicable to all cultures, he is instead an American-sounding god who speaks only in King James English & was beholden to the American slavery industry.
D&C 134:12 "settles" the issue for the Mormon: Are slaves & trafficking victims worthy of the "gospel?" LDS Answer? Nope! "neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them..." says LDS "Scripture. (Can you imagine a verse still applicable today which would tell you in effect that yes, the gospel was for women who are sexually trafficked--but only if their Pimp-owner says "Yes?")
And why not? Well, says D&C 134:12: We don't want ta meddle with the Mastuhs' business property, or to say it as precisely as LDS "Scripture" says it: nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life...
(Nah. We can't have unhappy slaves or trafficking victims now, can we? Too disturbing to their "stations" of life, eh?)
Now what are the ultimate reasons for this again? D&C 134:12 provides the answer:
Reason #1: ...such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust... (There ya have it...wouldn't want to be "unjust" by giving slaves the gospel & baptizing them, would ya?)
Reason #2: ...and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude. (And, of course, the "closer": Wouldn't want to disturb the peace & quiet of slavery-sanctioning governments, now would ya?)
[Caveat: Now it is true that the LDS were largely anti-slavery in places like Missouri & Illinois years of their history, but then it came to pass that during the Brigham Young-ruled years he "denounced abolitionists and allowed slavery in the Utah territory...[saying that] race-mixing should be punishable by death." (Source: Frank Lockwood, "BYU Prof: Mormons aren't ashamed of pre-1978 segregation," Little Rock Democrat-Gazette, Dec. 13, 2007)…Even more curious is statements now from LDS official spokespersons like Kim Farah, who directly contradicts the practical effect of D&C 134:12 when she wrote in a written statement: "The Gospel is for all people. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints declares that 'all are alike unto God' and that God invites 'all to come unto him and partake of his goodness, and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female.'" (Source: Lockwood) Who is right? Farah? Or D&C 134:12?)]
"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." - 12th Article of Faith, written by the Prophet Joseph SmithWhich is why after seeking redress at the highest court of the land, the church discontinued the practice of polygamy and those would would not follow the word of God were excused from the church. The FLDS, of whom I have a few friends (one wife, low level, former Coworkers, JFTR) (which give me grief every time I go for a temple recommend I might add), believe the command to practice polygamy superseded the twelfth article of faith.
“In the 1800’s if you were not married by 16 you were an “old maid”, life spans were shorter then.”
That just isn’t true, the average age for getting married for women was about 22.
“This study examined marriage patterns between ethnic groups in six counties in Texas in 1850, 1860, 1880, 1900, and 1910. Data were obtained from the census for 3 counties near the border and 3 counties in mostly livestock-raising areas. Average marriage ages in Texas were higher for men than for women and declined over time from over 26 years to 25.2 years from 1850 to 1910. Women’s average marriage age increased from over 20 years in 1850 to 22 years in 1910.”
We know EXACTLY who received revelation in the Bible.
How do you know that for your self?
How do you know that for your self?
Next time you are using Wikipedia, you might want to look up "circular reasoning" because you seem to employ it a great deal.
But to answer your question, it is called faith. Now, I understand that you also have faith, my point was that I find it odd that Smith misplaced something as spectacular as the gold plates and decoder.
And while we're at it, what EXACTLY happened in America in the 5th Century AD that caused the Indians to abandon their religion? Where is the archeological evidence that they EVER practiced this religion as claimed by Smith?
1890: Manifesto (a statement denouncing polygamy)
"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriage...I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws..."~ Wilford Woodruff, 4th LDS President
To Whom It May Concern:
Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—
I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.
One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.
Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.
There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.
WILFORD WOODRUFF
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:
“I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”
The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.
Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.
|
Hebrews 11:35-40
35. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. 36. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. 37. They were stoned ; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated-- 38. the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground. |
The most important social and political topic of all is God.
Lot's of people have varying opinions of who God is, what He stands for, and what He said is True.
For instance, Joseph Smith claimed all other forms of Christianity were an "abomination" and only he was told the right way.
Along with that claim came a whole bunch of social and political consequences - many of them very ugly.
Make LDS adherents here make no apologies for proselytizing their faith here on FR. I make no apologies for opposing them.
I have never read a single post where a person has said "Aha! Now you have convinced me. I will turn my life over to Christ".
I believe God's word (the real one) doesn't strike most people in one sitting or one conversation. It took me years of listening to conversations, reading for myself (both secular and scriptural books), and a plethora of my own questions to others before I realized God was trying to get through to me.
I studied every religion out there, from Buddhism to New Ageism.
In the end, only one was true. The Law of Non-Contradiction says two opposing viewpoints cannot both be equally factual. One is true, and one it false.
Mormonism (or LDS if you prefer) has been weighed on the scales and is found wanting.
When you are being checked out at the grocery store, do you always make a point and ask the cashier whether or not they are born again?
No. But when an opportunity is presented to me to talk about Christ, and if the person is reasonably open to it, I will talk to them.
I recently met a young woman who is 60+ days free from drug abuse. She has two small children, and has lost her job. She also just recently wrecked her car. She came to a bible study, and we started talking.
Is something like that OK with you? I ask, because you seem to believe you have the some sort of authority to say where and when someone can share Christ with someone.
If it isn't on a Conservative forum, then where? Or, where else do you think we should stifle debate on God?
Give me some examples?
Again, what I believed you were really trying to do was limit debate here because you didn't like where it was going. It was either exposing something you didn't want exposed, or it was raising questions that you didn't want raised.
Since you asked about me approaching a cashier (and you obviously were asking in a mocking tone), let me ask you this:
Is it also reasonable then for two young men dressed up in white shirts and ties to knock on every door in a neighborhood and asked to be invited into their home so they can proselytize about the rantings of Joseph Smith?
They have every right to do so.
And I have every right to post here about Christ, and His gospel (notice I didn't say "restored" because there is no such thing).
Then read the Manifesto REAL good, and you'll see that GOD did NOT say that polygamy was bad: ONLY the the USGUMMINT would get 'em if THEY did not stop the PRACTICE.
The TEXAS GUMMINT got 'em in Eldorado; 'cause they didn't stop the PRACTICE.
You have NO data proving there was anything higher or lesser about what Moses got for God!
Don’t bother pinging ME with YOUR morality definition. I have had personal experience with yours.
Why???
It is just MORE stuff that Joseph Smith thought up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.