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.”
No, a person's faith has NOTHING to do with the answers to what happened to the gold plates and decoder or why the Israelites stoppe practicing their religion in America in the 5th Century.
You just have no answer to back up your position
If you want my answer to the above, here it is:
There are no gold plates or decoder, nor is there a shred of evidence of Israelites in America from 600 B.C. to 400 A.D. because I don't believe a word of it is true, I think Smith made the whole thing up.
It is YOU who has no answer.
3 And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.Read em and weep... It's in the Bible. U Said: (But we understand, DU, that D&C 132 colors your viewpoint of the Bible...and that D&C 132 was written by a cohort of Smith's so that he could take it in to Emma to convince her of Smith adding on to his harem).
Thanks for the link
SHHHH...don’t give her any more name-calling ideas!
There was no lying or half truth inplied there.
You like to go off on tangents which are distractions and have nothing to do with salvation
"you will be accused of "mocking" Mormonism, YOU BIGOT! There, fixed.
No, joey only brought it back for his own self pleasure.
Please show me one scripture in the Bible which actually says Polygamy is disapproved of by God.
Why, you don’t like your OWN inspired writings condemnation of it.
Before you go there, the Pharisees were asking about divorce, and if a man could divorce one wife and marry another, in none of the places where it is recorded in the gospels did Jesus address staying married and marrying another. (See Matt. 5: 27-32, and Matt. 19: 3-9 And Mark 10: 2-12) please note that my quotations contain the entire paragraph, not just selected verses only, I am trying very hard to be completely in context and not interpret anything but be literal about that the scriptures are saying.
Wow, you are improving, but you still fail to take the verses in their full context. Notice in ALL cases the term wife is SINGULAR. The Jesus’ teaching regarding marriage and divorce were based upon monogamy being the norm set forth by God. There is no evidence that Jewish law sanctioned polygamy at the time of Christ. Notice too that the permission to divorce was due to the sinful hardness of their hearts. So too, was polygamy. Then, look closely at Mt 19:4-6 within the context that Jesus cites His justification. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve, Mary, Joyce, etc. The foundational one man – one women , no where does He in the gospels imply women. Finally, He makes it clear that 2 become 1, not 3 or 4 or 36, but 2.
Declarations of disapproval :
Deut 17:17, Lev 18:18, Mal 2:14-15, 1 Tim 3:2 & 12, and Titus 1:6
Tolerated
Exodus 21:10; 1 Samuel 1:2; 2 Chronicles 24:3
Note that in no instance is polygamy linked as a necessary requirement to attain the highest level of heaven as was (is) the doctrine of mormonism.
U Said: Polygamy contradicts 12th Article of Faith. "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 Smith
Which 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.
That is disingenuous DU. They practiced it in secret for dozens of years DU, and during that time they didn’t seek redress at all! Where is the evidence of redress regarding the Illinois Anti-bigamy Law enacted February 12th, 1833? – NONE. Some were expelled BEFORE redress because they cross joey, not because of the practice that joey and his cabal were so deep in as well at the time.
Take a look here: http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/Photo_Archives&CISOPTR=8468&REC=2
Why were these people, including First Presidency counselor George Q. Cannon in prison for practicing polygamy? Because polygamy was illegal DU.
President Lorenzo Snow admits polygamy was illegal before 1843.
Lorenzo Snow's testimony in the "Temple Lot Case", pp. 320-322:
"A man that violated this law in the Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 edition, until the acceptance of that revelation by the church, violated the law of the church if he practiced plural marriage. Yes sir, he would have been cut off from the church, I think I should have been if I had. Before the giving of that revelation in 1843 if a man married more wives than one who were living at the same time, he would have been cut off from the church. It would have been adultery under the laws of the church and under the laws of the state, too."
Joseph took many plural wives in secret before 1843. And of course polygamy was illegal after 1843 as well
In Utah, Young attempted to establish the "Territory of Deseret," and operate the area as a theocracy, under the "Law of the Lord," which included plural marriage and blood atonement. However, Congress rejected Young's attempt, and in 1850, the area was officially established as Utah Territory, with territorial overseers appointed from Washington D.C. President Millard Fillmore appointed Young as governor. Thus, polygamy became specifically illegal under U. S. common laws in 1850; but, since polygamy was also illegal under Mexican laws beforehand, there was never a time when polygamy was legal in Utah.
One of your former living prophets and seers clarified this for us:
If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, 'We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law' [Articles of Faith 1:12]. One cannot obey the law and disobey the law at the same time.
http://www.meetmormonmissionaries.org/mormon_polygamy.html
If President Hinckley can condemn people practicing polygamy today because it is against civil laws then how can you justify the practice of polygamy in the 1800s when it also was against civil laws?
\ It is interesting to note that you start with "Your vile prophet" for upon this turns the interpretation of the rest of your post.
That is correct, and if you read the rest, you will see the foul fruit that it has brought forth.
IF Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of God, then what he did was commanded of God, and thus is right. If he was not a prophet of God then he was one of the trickiest cruelest charlatans ever to walk the face of the earth.
Lesseee, god provides a command in the bom and D&C prohibiting polygamy, then before the ink is even put to paper with god’s command (1835) he starts marrying other women (1832) supposedly at god’s command. Yep, something that a cruel charlatan would do. Then lie about it for dozens of years, building up a harem of 30+ women, many still married to their husbands.
Luckily, we can know who is who and what is what, for the same spirit that testifies of Jesus, has also testified to me of Joseph smith being a prophet even as Thomas S Monsen is today. It is a wonderful thing to walk in the light of truth revealed by God, and a terrible thing to walk in this world without it.
Oh yes, Joey was wonderful – just look at the faces and lives his followers have destroyed.
I have the audacity to seek after truth, prove me wrong and i will thank and not revile you for I am truly after truth, even from you and your argumentative way.
That I will when joey’s revelation has destroyed the lives of young girls. You cannot even face the truth that his behavior from start to finish was illegal, both by the law of the land and the law of the church, with the law of the church based upon joey’s presentation of god’s so-called commands that he so cleverly exempted himself from.
Not trying to muddy the waters, but you do know that Jewish tradition holds that Eve was not Adam's first wife, right? the reason Eve was made from Adam's rib was that Lillith
Yeh right, muddy the waters. The myth of Lillith is just that - a myth. It is not supported by the bible, nor the bom, but only present in Gnostic and apocryphal writings that do not reflect true history. Since it is false, it does not show that Adam was polygamous.
This is news to me, please quote the scripture where this is established in Mormon Doctrine canonized by the church. (there is no such place) There are many and varied theories by many people in and out of the church,
Never said it was scripture, but that it was taught. Apostle Orson Hyde on October 6, 1854
"How was it with Mary and Martha, and other women that followed him [Jesus]? In old times, and it is common in this day, the women, even as Sarah, called their husbands Lord; the word Lord is tantamount to husband in some languages, master, lord, husband, are about synonymous... When Mary of old came to the sepulchre on the first day of the week, instead of finding Jesus she saw two angels in white, 'And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou?' She said unto them,' Because they have taken away my Lord,' or husband, 'and I know not where they have laid him.' And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.' Is there not here manifested the affections of a wife. These words speak the kindred ties and sympathies that are common to that relation of husband and wife" (Journal of Discourses 2:81).
In that same talk he went on to say:
"Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified" (Journal of Discourses 2:82).
Apostle Orson Pratt taught the same:
He appeared first to these women, or at least to one of them -- namely, Mary Magdalene. Now it would be natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were His wives" (The Seer, p.159).
Jedediah M. Grant (second counselor to Brigham Young) stated: "the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based on polygamy…a belief of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p.346).
Apostle Orson Hyde: "…Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee... Mary, Martha, and others were his wives ... he begat children" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p.210).
None of these teachings, documented in mormon writings have ever been denounced by the GA as erroneous, heretical or false.
I am not surprised that you lay this at his door, however, you are mistaken, abuse as we are learning of here is not to be had in his story, no one should marry against their will, no one should be incarcerated for a religion, and no one should break the law.
Oh yes they are to be had from joey’s story. First, he had the membership terrified and used the threat of damnation (or excommunication) and promise of the celestical kingdom to coerce parents to give him their daughter(s).
"Without any preliminaries, my father asked me if I would believe him if he told me that it was right for married men to take other wives."
"The first impulse was anger... My sensibilities were painfully touched. I felt such a sense of personal injury and displeasure; for to mention such a thing to me I thought altogether unworthy of my father, and as quick he spoke , I replied to him, short and emphatically, NO I WOULDN'T! This is the first time that I ever openly manifested anger towards him."
"Then he (my father) commenced talking seriously and reasoned and explained the principle (of polygamy) and why it was again established upon the earth, etc."
"This first interview had a similar effect to a sudden shock of a small earthquake. When he found (after the first outburst of displeasure for supposed injury) and I received it meekly, he took the first opportunity to introduce Sarah Ann to me as Joseph's Wife. This astonished me beyond measure."
"Having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet, Joseph, he (my father) offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet's own mouth. My father had but one Ewe Lamb, but willingly laid her upon the altar: how cruel this seemed to my mother whose heartstrings were already stretched until they were ready to snap asunder, for she had already taken Sarah Noon to wife and she thought she had made sufficient sacrifice but the Lord required more."-
Helen Mar Whitney Journal, Helen Mar Autobiography, Woman’s Exponent, 1880 and recently reprinted in A Woman's view
Those are Helen's own words. Judge for yourself whether or not Helen was experiencing any coercion, or that this situation had anything to do with an ethical God, or rather a sex craved prophet with too much power and time on his hands. Link to this pro-mormon website
http://www.mormonthink.com/polyweb.htm
This is just silly, your demagoguery is duly noted. BTW, I don't have the time to respond to massive posts all the time, if your post is too big, I may just ignore it and go on to reply to other posters.
And your lack of appreciation to the hell your prophet unleashed on innocent children is duly noted too. Pro polygamy apologetics = stuck on stupid.
Red is MY choice.
Has it occurred to you guys that we have our very own “Don Rickles of Free Republic” in person? Pure comedy in action.
WOW, that’s some set of wheels.
One of my friends owns the Dodge dealership in Salt Lake City.
Dare I say Hinckley?
Anyway you can hear that beast coming from a mile away.
I can get you a deal for about 75,000.
Can you take about 30 years off my age so I don’t look ridiculous in one?
Botox, hair dye, lipstick.
Sorry you can talk about gold plates etc all you want and I can ask you where are the Tablets the Lord gave Moses.
It never seems to occur to the mainstream why did Moses have to receive another record of all the doing between the children and God on earth before Moses time from the Lord.
Where are the orginals?
There are so many questions that the Bible gives man, but it seem like the mainstream reads the scriptures with blinders intack!
My disgust level with you is growing to intolerable levels.
You know, it wasn’t too long we were discussing the young boys in S. Utah kicked out of their homes by fLDS so as not to compete for the women. So not only has joey’s legacy destroyed these young girls, he mangled the lives of these boys too. What a wonderful, kind prophet of mormonism, what a wonderful, kind god of mormonism.
In a culture where virginity is everything to a young woman, no, you don't just throw a mature fish back into the water...especially if you're trying to be a man of God and not convert such a woman into a permanent "unmarry-able" woman.
Re: Gen. 16:3.
Read ‘em and weep
With modern-day surrogacy, the husband doesn’t have to sleep with the surrogate. In Abraham’s era, obviously no such technology existed. Just because Jacob went in “to wife” [lit. wording of Gen. 30:4--meaning to have intercourse] with Bilhah did not change her status as a slave (Gen 29:29; 30:3) or as a concubine (Gen. 35:3). IOW, she didn’t “graduate” from slavehood to wifehood. The same is also true of Hagar. As you read Gen. 16 in context, you will see that even after Abram slept with Hagar, he doesn’t reference her as his “wife.” He says to Sarai: ”Your servant is in your hands,” Abram said. “Do with her whatever you think best.” Then Sarai mistreated Hagar…” (Gen. 16:6) [What? Do you think of Abram as being some totally inept "husband" who wouldn't keep his new supposed "bride" from being abused?]
The angel of the Lord, whom some believe is the appearance of the pre-incarnated Son of God, then pays a visit to Hagar. Does He call her “Hagar, new wife of Abram?” (Nope): ”The angel of the Lord found Hagar…he said, ‘Hagar, servant of Sarai…” (Gen. 16:8)
Bottom-line? Hagar wasn’t serving Abram as his extra wife; she was serving Sarai as her surrogate. Abram still references Hagar as “your servant” and the angel of the Lord references her as “servant of Sarai.” (post-conception). Likewise, Genesis 30-- with Jacob’s two wives & the two servant girls--is all about overblown surrogacy--a baby competition fueled by jealousy (Gen. 30:1)...and please note, that this is exactly what many of the 19th century LDS families degenerated into! (Jealous baby competitions in which women like Leah tried to win love & favor via childbirth)
Since you are the one who is trying to say that surrogate slave girls is the moral equivalency of 19th century LDS polygamy, if they truly were equivalent, then I suppose you are trying to tell us all that every “add-on” LDS wive's primary identity was exactly like Sarai's & & Leah's & Rachel's servant girls-—their primary identity were servants to the first wife--not to the husband/patriarch. Is that so?
You have proof of the intents of these men long dead? I thought not. So this is just an undisguised smear.
Yes I have an LDS citation...won't be able to get around to it til tonight (didn't originate with me).
Actually, I can show you how I'm related to Abraham, it's in my genealogy, I've followed familial relationships in the Bible, honest.
(Yeah, yeah, we know...we're sure the apostle John, who is supposedly still out & about on planet earth according to Smith...or perhaps one of the three ancient Nephite disciples...showed up to your door and filled in the blanks on your family tree :) )
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.