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.”
I Said Joseph smith no more invented polygamy than Al Gore invented the Internet, nice try.
U Said No, joey only brought it back for his own self pleasure.
Please tell me the exact time period when no one was practicing polygamy... (Snicker) Mankind, regardless of your personal preferences has been polygamous for most of the time he has existed.
As for his pleasure, some of the wives were young, and some of the wives were really old like fifties, woo who...
I Said Please show me one scripture in the Bible which actually says Polygamy is disapproved of by God.
U Said Why, you don’t like your OWN inspired writings condemnation of it.
Circular reasoning, if Joseph is a prophet, then the writings and his changes to the doctrine are of God. on the other side of that pancake if Joseph was not a prophet then his writings that condemn it are not of God, so who cares?
U Said 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.
Let's explore this bit of disingenuous logic on your part, Let's take the first scripture
Matt 5:27-32 27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed dadultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
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.
You are saying that the word wife is singular, fine, are you suggesting that a man who has more than one wife cannot have another that he was not divorcing? There are so many real life examples of why this metaphor of your doesn't work that in the interests of brevity, I'll just let the readers think about them.
U Said The Jesus’ teaching regarding marriage and divorce were based upon monogamy being the norm set forth by God.
Um, yeah, that's why he approved of Abraham and called him, the friend of God. Here is a question fro you oh bible scholar, how many wives and concubines did Abraham have? (this should be fun)
U Said There is no evidence that Jewish law sanctioned polygamy at the time of Christ.
A baldly stated supposition, since you say there is non (an absolute) all I have to do is show one piece of evidence no matter how shaky, and you are proven wrong. (it's called logic) so here is an article in the
Jerusalem Post, advocating a return to Polygamy by Jews as a way to combat moral decadence and adultery in men. One of the arguments used by the author is that polygamy has existed in Judaism up to the last 1,000 years. So ends a major pole in the support of your logical tent. (Debate hint, never speak in absolutes, chuckle)
U Said Notice too that the permission to divorce was due to the sinful hardness of their hearts.
Right, they should stay married and raise the children, he could always marry another wife and not "see" (as in make babies with) the unhappy one, so what's the problem?
U Said So too, was polygamy.
Ya just can't jump form Polygamy, accepted, practiced, and never condemned to Divorce grudgingly allowed, not practiced by any who were approved of by God (Hagar was still known as Abraham's wife even after she was sent away).
U Said 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.
Aren't you the one who brought in Jewish traditions? God created Adam and Lillith and Eve. God married Adam to all the available women (it's just as valid as saying only one...
As for the singular thing, how many polygamous marriages happened en mass? I venture to say the number would be vanishing small.
U Said 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.
LOL! Do you even know when you stop quoting scriptures and start interpreting them? Here lets do some math:
1. X = Man
2. X = X plus wife.
3. X is now equal to one family.
Repeat step 2 36 times, step three remains unchanged.
You logic is flawed on this because you want it to be the way you want it to be, I am sorry you are so out of touch with reality.
U Said Declarations of disapproval :
Deut 17:17, Lev 18:18, Mal 2:14-15, 1 Tim 3:2 & 12, and Titus 1:6
Deut 17:17Kings will marry wives from other religions, and it will corrupt them.
Lev 18:18Don't marry a sister to tick off your current wife.
Mal 2:14-15Don't be mean to your first wife.
Tim 3:2 & 12A call for Bishops and Deacons to be married (this could have been translated as one or at least one in the greek, but fine, let's say this is a call fro only one wife for bishops and deacons, so?)
Titus 1:6Another call for Bishops to be married, again the Greek could equally be interpreted to be at least one, but even with your interpretation, it's hardly a condemning of the practice among the people, it's a call for bishops to be above reproach in all things.
This is the best you've Got? Then you list three places where it's "tolerated" I am shocked that that was all you could come up with from the Bible, but no matter, it's tolerated so it's not a sin.
U Said 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.
Either this is a willful misstatement of Mormon Doctrine, or you really are ignorant about our beliefs, Marriage is a requirement, plurality of wives is not.
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
I Said 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.
U Said 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.
Polygamy in Nauvoo was legal. The city had a charter from Illinois that made it legal. The law outlawing Bigamy was being tried in the courts, and besides who cares? I freely admit that it is the law now, what does Nauvoo have to do with the existence of polygamy in the bible? What does Joseph Smith have to do with the perpetrators of illegal activity in Texas? you always stray from the topic, polygamy was legal in the bible, you have admitted as much in your post to me. Discouraged? maybe, but biblical. Polygamy is illegal today in the USA, that means it's illegal, but moral and as I pointed out before, Abortion is immoral, and unbiblical, and legal. You keep trying to muddy Legality with morality. I ask you straight out can the government of the United states of America pass a law and make something moral? I would love to hear your answer to that, and please leave Joseph and Mormons out of it, it's a philosophical question.
U Said Why were these people, including First Presidency counselor George Q. Cannon in prison for practicing polygamy? Because polygamy was illegal DU.
A sorry example, the marriages happened first, then the law was passed and people were incarcerate, are you in favor of enforcing laws after the fact? Why don't we just shred the constitution now and be done with the illusion of freedom?
We already talked about the City Charter for Nauvoo, Blood atonement was a theory, not a practice, based on David's experience, and goes to the death penalty for murder, I am again not surprised that when you are losing a debate you attempt to drag red herrings across the topic of the Biblical nature of polygamy and how it's not what was so reprehensible about what was happening in Texas, but the force, torture and illegal nature of the proceedings there.
U Said 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.
This is funny, earlier in this very post you called me disingenuous for saying the 12th article of faith was why we stopped practicing polygamy, either I was not disingenuous then, or you are now.
U Said there was never a time when polygamy was legal in Utah.
WOW! Speaking of Disingenuous, there was no federal law in territories until Utah was petitioning to become a state, the law was passed and retroactively applied to polygamous families to try to decimate the church, it was messy, but it like all else that Satan tries has and will fail.
U Said 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?
Polygamy was practiced widely in early America, many "Mountain men" had white and Indian wives, white men often had multiple wives, the Indians had no monogamous ideas, as things settled down more provincial ideas took hold and polygamy was outlawed along with alcohol, how well did that work out?
I Said It is interesting to note that you start with "Your vile prophet" for upon this turns the interpretation of the rest of your post.
U Said That is correct, and if you read the rest, you will see the foul fruit that it has brought forth.
This is the very definition of Circular reasoning "if you'll just accept my point, then I can prove it's true. LOL!
I'm just going to ignore most of your quote mining, given an sufficiently large volume of work you can find an obscure quote that says anything regardless of what the "work" actually says. Joseph smith and whether he was right or wrong has nothing to do with whether or not polygamy is biblically accepted by God and therefore moral. These males (they are not men in my book) would have started a religion on their own, and would have added this in from the Bible if they wanted to, there are plenty of people speaking out for polygamy who are not Mormons, here, Google
+Polygamy -Mormon to see a large body of links on polygamy which do not mention Mormons 2,700,000 when I ran it. From what I have seen, you want to beat up on Mormons, you don't really care if Polygamy is Biblical. You don't seem to care about the people in Texas, it's just an opportunity to bet up on us, LOL1 IMHO Behavior like that is really pathetic.
U Said 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.
I Said Oh yes, Joey was wonderful – just look at the faces and lives his followers have destroyed.
Maybe you didn't notice, but the twelve disciples didn't exactly fare well either, how many of them died of old age in their sleep? Faith in God, that's what's important, Joseph did pretty good on that score.
I Said 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.
U Said 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.
Lets see, based on these tow posts, I seek after faith, you seek after hatred, how can a person who represents the God of love spew so much hate? Seriously, you expect people to follow you to Christ when you start by preaching hate? We seem to have a lot of Jeremiah Write wannabees among the anti Momrons.
I Said 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
U Said 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.
Lets see, you brought up Jewish tradition saying Adam was monogamous, I countered with another tradition, and you get all bent out of shape, hey if you bring in the traditions of men (which you did) you bring all of them in and make them all fair game. now you want to cry foul and it sounds like this (wait, I didn't know he was well versed in that topic too? It's not fair Where's my Waaaaaambulance!)
Do I believe the Lillith thing, I am not sure, it's got some interesting points, Lillith created by God at the same time as Adam making men and women equals, and I like that, it shows why God would ask "it is not good for man to be alone"
Gen 2:18
U Said (Oh, but wait, Mormons believe Jesus married Mary and Martha). in post
#1685
I Said 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,
U Said 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).
You go on and on with Quotations out of context from non canonized sources,LOL! I guess I will now begin to quote from Jeremiah Wright and Fred Phelps and demand that you to defend it, LOL! It's not doctrine of the church any more than Fred Phelps' bile is your doctrine, nice smear on a private musing, which is not original BTW, and stating clearly that it is a teaching of the church, and I quote "Oh, but wait, Mormons believe Jesus married Mary and Martha" If I were a mean person, I could hang that around your neck and logically drown you with that statement for it is untrue. I am a Mormon in good standing, and I do not believe that, nice try.
None of these teachings, documented in Mormon writings have ever been denounced by the GA as erroneous, heretical or false.
An argument from ignorance again? the teachings of Christians writers like Fred Phelps and Jeremiah wright have not been individually repudiated by you, therefore you support them, LOL! (see how that looks when the same logic is just turned around, it's an invalid argument of it's own weight)
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 celestial kingdom to coerce parents to give him their daughter(s).
Oh please, are you even remotely familiar with the history of Christianity and the coercion that was used whole sale by early churches? Your arguments here should be pilloried on FR as an example of disengenuosness (pun fully and tortuously intended)
U Said 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-preferences website http://www.mormonthink.com/polyweb.htm
This is a "pro Mormon" web site to you? They try to say they are, then they attack us on every font, LOL! so If I set up a "pro whatever your denomination is website then post stuff refuting the Trinity, will truly feel it's pro what ever your denomination is? I doubt it a cursory reading of this site will lead anyone with an IQ above room temperature to recognize that they are liars and not very good at it.
I Said 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.
U Said And your lack of appreciation to the hell your prophet unleashed on innocent children is duly noted too. Pro polygamy apologetics = stuck on stupid.
So is unreasoning (and your attacks are unreasoning) attacks on another religious faith. That said, i do not support what happened in Texas, the under age nature (law of the land) polygamy (also illegal), torture, need i say this is illegal? The incarceration of those who disagreed and wanted out, also illegal. you keep trying to tie my statement that polygamy is morally approved of in the Bible (which you have admitted) and that makes it moral now (which you have denied) out to be support for these people and it's simply not. Reality won't twist for you and you just end up looking like a liar.
If remarriage after divorce is considered adultery by God, then why isn’t another marriage WHILE STILL MARRIED?
Of course, it’s adultery. You get married. Sex outside of marriage is adultery, so any other *marriage* would also fall into that category.
***
All I know is that the Lord reason and ways are not the understanding of our ways. There were certain times I found it to be in operation it seems when a new dispensation was started again that polygamy took place.
To me when I read the scriptures on some topic we only get bits and pieces and not the back ground or the circumstance which for me the Book of Mormon fills in many of those gaps!
Please I don’t expect you to feel the same as I do, and I respect that, it would be nice if other could return the courtesy even if they don’t agree.
The Lord was very much involved in this plural marriage along with who was conceiving and also who was a wife or a handmaid wife.
Gen 29
15 ¶ And Laban said unto Jacob, Because thou art my brother, shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? tell me, what shall thy wages be?
16 And Laban had two daughters: the name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel.
17 Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.
18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.
19 And Laban said, It is better that I give her to thee, than that I should give her to another man: abide with me.
20 And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her.
21 ¶ And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her.
22 And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast.
23 And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her.
24 And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for an handmaid.
25 And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me?
26 And Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn.
27 Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.
28 And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also.
29 And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his handmaid to be her maid.
30 And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.
31 ¶ And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.
32 And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the Lord hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me.
33 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the Lord hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon.
34 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, because I have born him three sons: therefore was his name called Levi.
35 And she conceived again, and bare a son: and she said, Now will I praise the Lord: therefore she called his name Judah; and left bearing.
This continues on http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gen/30
