BREAKING NEWS UPDATE: Authorities enter Eldorado-area temple (Fundamentalist LDS cult)

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.

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: As to liar, Please prove my intent to deceive anywhere... It's required for lying to stick. Since I have never intended to deceive anyone here…

U Said: BS. You are commanded to lie.

This is simply not true, Here is a talk given by Dallin H oaks after his talk in september was being quote mined by anti Mormons, it's called "Be Honest in All Behavior" But hey, you misquote and misunderstand the Lord, you misquote and misunderstand general authorities, why should I expect anything else?

U Said: Its called Lying for the Lord in your satanic doctrine.

Yeah, sections of his talk were taken out of context, here is a response to this old (isn't this talk 14 years old?) quote mining operation, it's called Lying for the Lord?. If you bother to read the page, they point out that he was saying You should never... and this is why everything in the "..." is what you are quoting. I personally will not "lie for the lord", he does not need for anyone to lie for him, he is a God of truth.

Someone, I think it was restornu posted the "Edited Video" next to an unedited video, it was blatant Quote mining, now you know, the next time you say this you will be lying.

U Said: Another Mormon (or ex now) gives his personal testimony of being excommunicated for telling the truth Here.

Having participated in church courts, this account is fanciful is not artfully done, the continuing references to dark suits for one is a hoot, were they all supposed to wear pastel colors? I do not doubt that he was excommunicated, but communications, like divorce proceedings should never be heard one sided, and since he knows the men in the room cannot speak out to correct the story, he is free to say whatever he wants, the fact that he wrote an article for the "Mormonism Research Ministry" says he is trying to hurt the church. As for concealing stuff, LOL! The church has built several monuments at the Mountain meadows massacre, I have seen discussions(and been part of them) on blood atonement and the Danites in church during sunday school, (Anti Mormon's had brought it up to one of the members and we discussed it freely evidence for and against.) the only people who believe this tripe are those who would themselves conceal truth to make themselves look good.

"Two men in dark suits"...

U Said: You were caught deliberately lying to ME in this post. An excerpt:

You said: No, Joseph smith did not answer my prayer, and I did not pray to him (we don't do that) I prayed to God and God answered and his spirit testified of the truthfulness of the book of Mormon, period, end of story…..

you focus on Joseph, we focus on Christ.

U Said: More lying for the Lord there Delphi???

U Said: And then I posted your own doctrine which . “From the day that the priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding up things of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are -- I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:289 See also Search These Commandments, 1984, pg. 133).

Let me make this simple for you, the Journal Of Discourses (JOD) is not church cannon because it contains stuff like this, that was Brigham Young's opinion, and while he had a lot of great opinions, it's not cannon, it's not doctrine and it's not what we believe.

The JOD is exactly that a compilation of discourses, or sermons taught by many men some of them general authorities some later even became the prophet of the church, but the JOD is not cannon because of some of the things it contains including this snip you interpret to mean we pray to Joseph smith we do not, and more importantly I did not. Which is what I said I prayed to God, God answered and you are calling me a liar for telling the truth about an event that you cannot know the details of for you were not there. I did not lie, you are incorrect in whom I pray to, and in spite of your continuing to say something that is not true, unlike you I am not attributing motive.

U Said: I then proved your quote mining from sources you posted in Post #2133 providing the quotes which you left out in my Post #2317.

What is it you think I quote mined? The quotations from the Records of the Catholic Church from the first council of Nicea? Was it Hippolytuas's summation? (you did say I shouldn't just post the summary, and I did post the Link, here, let iterate (since iterate means repeat, you cannot reiterate, you can only continue to iterate...)

as to the concept of the trinity existing before 325 AD, Duh they was a controversy over it! No one said it popped out of thin air on 325 AD and everybody said WOW! lets believe that! But if you go back to Hippolytus' day (He died in 236 AD), you have him fighting Modalism in Against one Noetus where he slaughters this heresy as a representative of the church using scriptures an the interpretations there of that would eviscerate the trinitarian doctrine just as well as the Modlism doctrine. Want a taste?

This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died. You see what pride of heart and what a strange inflated spirit had insinuated themselves into him. Froth his other actions, then, the proof is already given us that he spoke not with a pure spirit; for he who blasphemes against the Holy Ghost is cast out from the holy inheritance.
Here, here is some more Early church doctrine from Book X of his ten book set called a refutation of all heresies, and I quote...
"Such is the true doctrine in regard of the divine nature, O you men, Greeks and Barbarians, Chaldeans and Assyrians, Egyptians and Libyans, Indians and Ethiopians, Celts, and you Latins, who lead armies, and all you that inhabit Europe, and Asia, and Libya. And to you I am become an adviser, inasmuch as I am a disciple of the benevolent Logos, and hence humane, in order that you may hasten and by us may be taught who the true God is, and what is His well-ordered creation. Do not devote your attention to the fallacies of artificial discourses, nor the vain promises of plagiarizing heretics, but to the venerable simplicity of unassuming truth. And by means of this knowledge you shall escape the approaching threat of the fire of judgment, and the rayless scenery of gloomy Tartarus, where never shines a beam from the irradiating voice of the Word!

You shall escape the boiling flood of hell's eternal lake of fire and the eye ever fixed in menacing glare of fallen angels chained in Tartarus as punishment for their sins; and you shall escape the worm that ceaselessly coils for food around the body whose scum has bred it. Now such (torments) as these shall you avoid by being instructed in a knowledge of the true God. And you shall possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And you shall receive the kingdom of heaven, you who, while you sojourned in this life, knew the Celestial King. And you shall be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For you have become God: for whatever sufferings you underwent while being a man, these He gave to you, because you were of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon you, because you have been deified, and begotten unto immortality. This constitutes the import of the proverb, "Know yourself" i.e., discover God within yourself, for He has formed you after His own image. For with the knowledge of self is conjoined the being an object of God's knowledge, for you are called by the Deity Himself. Be not therefore inflamed, O you men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards you. And provided you obey His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, you shall resemble Him, inasmuch as you shall have honour conferred upon you by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish anything of the divinity of His divine perfection; having made you even God unto His glory!"
(Emphasis added by me)
BTW, one of the essential points of quote mining is that the Miner doesn't provide links to the source, and it's an obscure text (the bible for example is more difficult to quote mine from because it's widely available, and widely read, the JOD on the other hand is not, and since most people will never look without a link you can quote just about whatever you want and not get called on it, a debater using this technique can Appeal to Misleading Authority, at least until some OCD person comes along an looks up the source... which is the point of Quote mining, hoping the OCD person never comes or that the argument has moved on by then.

Even Godzilla does not want to examine too closely the way the Trinity was added to the Catholic Church, let me make the logic simple for you so you can understand.

There is evidence that many maybe even most Christians before 300 AD believe in a pysically separate Jesus and God the father. (See my page for some examples.)
There is evidence that there was a controversy taking place for some time before 325 AD.
There is evidence that Constantine had a political motive in messing with the Christain religion.
There is evidence that Constantine convened the Nicene council, set the agenda and participated whenever it suited him.
On op of all this "Evidence" against the Trinity being an "Apocraful" teaching, Anti Momorns love to Cite Revelataions and tell mormons nothing can be added tothe Bible, but this was an addition.
anti's love to tell us that anyone who teaches any other gospel than paul taught will be accursed, yet paul never taught the trinity.
To sum up, the Trinity, is the doctrine that Joseph smith was talking about when he said that all other religions were an abomination before God, that's the sticking point for our two points of view. Even Godzilla does not want to get into a discussion about this, but you do? I double Dog dare you and Godzilla, Start a thread about the Trinity and how it came to be, invite all the Momrons over and see how well you do defending this actual tenet of your faith , you won't because you can't.

Don't accuse me of quote mining unless you can prove it!

When I'm wrong, I admit it, and I have been worn many times on FR, I am not wrong about this.

U Said: You were caught red-handed. And still you lie yet again.

You, Caught me? What a steaming pile of Bovine excrament.

I Said: Godzilla is a paid clergy…

U Said: Since I happen to be the administrative assistant to a ‘paid clergy’ for the past 20+ years now that’s a glowing recommendation for Godzilla. I’ll take that any day over a lying, deceiving apologist who seeks to lead people into Hell for all eternity.

That's very interesting, so you get to attack our church on the job? It explains a lot, I am a part timer, as I have a day job, yet I give you and Godzilla trouble, this is funny...

There area few scripture you two might want to read:
1 Peter 5:2
2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
Titus 1: 7, 11
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.
1 Timothy 3:3, 8
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
You and Godzilla "teach what you ought not for filthy lucre", these scriptures were written for you.

U Said: Like I said I’m done with you.

Yeah, I heard that before, when you respond to this it will make this post a lie, you know that, right?

U Said: You’re like the energizer bunny,

Why thank you, sounds like somebody is getting frustrated that they can't win with Argumentum ad Baculum, LOL!

U Said: you are rebuked and proven wrong and you bring up the same posts again and again and again.

And you have never been rebuked? Wait, I posted a rebuke specifically so you couldn't say this, but I won't call you a liar, nope, not me, I wouldn't call you a liar not at all (chuckle)

U Said: Its really hysterical how brainwashed you are.

Likewise I'm sure, at least I'm not being paid to do this, for me, it's fun (It's more fun and I don't get frustrated becasue I'm right...).

U Said: As to polygamy you were soundly rebuked by Godzilla in this post and yet again on this post and yet you bring up yet AGAIN the very same question in which you were already soundly defeated and proven wrong.

You are right about one thing, I was rebuked, by you and Godzilla, many other posters here have expressed sharp disapproval and reproved me , they are also wrong just as you and Godzilla are. (if you are going to use words, learn what they actually say, you keep embarrassing yourself with this word rebuke like it proves you were right, and I have been making fun of you for weeks, the joke's getting a little stale, so I'm letting you in on it now...)

As for being soundly defeated, funny, I don't remember surrendering, I don't see my ability to post being impaired by the overwhelming logic you have brought to bear, instead, I see people all plying their own Private interpretation to the scriptures, I see people trying to post so much and so large of posts that they will be impossible to respond to see Argumentum ad Baculum, and yet, I post undefeated, undeterred, undefeatable. It must be very frustrating to you not to be able to shut me up when what I say has such obvious support from the the Bible you claim I don't understand, very frustrating indeed.

U Said: I will answer this yet again by mentioning Deut. 17:17 - “neither shall he multiply wives for himself…”

Nice how you leave out the rest of the scripture, here, let me correct that over site, in fact, let's look at the whole paragraph, just so no one is quote mining (We wouldn't want that now would we? :)
14 ¶ When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:
20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.
OK, now this makes more sense, when a king is in Israel, he should not sell people into slavery, nor collect large numbers of horses, nor collect large numbers of wives nor amass a fortune, he should study the law and follow God's commands.

Quote mining in the Bible is really pathetic, and no one in the USA will ever be the king of Israel, and even this scripture (in context which you love so much) does not say what you are saying it does.

Then there is the cultural aspect, God specifically talks about the nations around them, how were treaties sealed back then? Marriage, the king would marry one of the daughters of the king the treaty was with, and when David and Solomon did this, it caused lots of trouble for them and for Israel. So we have prophecy, and fulfillment, beautiful, but not applicable to this topic, and that should now be obvious. You should also read this and try to stop wresting the scriptures.

U Said: or I Timothy 3:2- A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,…

OK, I'll go over this again: a) this is a qualification for someone to be bishop, (I am not a bishop even in the LDS church).
B) If this was a limit on the number of wives and monogamy was "always how the Jews and everyone lived (except for a few excentric prophets...) then why bring it up? C) if you go look at the Greek, every time Paul said "Husband of one wife" it was actually "Husband of at least one wife". The actual test in Greek is "mia gune aner"

The meanings of these words is easy to find:
mia: "Mia is a Feminine particle meaning One or first, or the first one of"
gune: "Adult female or wife."
aner: "Adult male or husband"
For example, the Days of the week are feminine in Greek, so sunday is said using Mia as the first day of the week, unless you are now going to insist that There is only and should only be one day in a week, you are being inconsistent.

Let's consider this logically, are you actually saying that a scripture in greek that can be translated to be "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of (a or at least) one wife", should be translated in such a way as to make Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, and Moses ineligible to be priesthood leaders? The cognitive dissonance must be debilitating.

Since you are big on the word rebuke, I rebuke you and mia was not translated from the Greek correctly, not that it was on purpose, but those translating it put their own bias on the translation, and their bias was against polygamy, and even against marriage for priests, let alone plural marriage.

IMHO, this means using the "Husband of one wife" Pauline scriptures as proof that Polygamy is disapproved by God and unbiblical, is disingenuous, and an invalid argument, thus whenever these are scriptures are quoted I will respond with the definition of Mia and it's usage. I will not think I have been "defeated, but that I am victorious in that you have no answer except to say "I don't interpret it that way and neither did the men translating the Bible"

U Said: but really Godzilla has already soundly rebuked you.

Yeah, yeah, I stand rebuked, and so do you, but I'm still right and you're still wrong, rebuking does not prove a thing, I REBUKE YOU! See?

U Said: What a pathetic weasel of a man you are.

Man, you must really be frustrated to resort to ad homonym attacks this late into a thread when the Mod has already been pinged here several times...

Mod, if you are reading this, I don't mind, don't ban her, please.

I Said: As to liar, Please prove my intent to deceive anywhere... It's required for lying to stick. Since I have never intended to deceive anyone here…

Wrong, you showed deceit when you singled me out, by name and said I had never read or prayed about the bom, then had the audacity to try to pull a Hillery. You’ve been caught other times too.

Let me make this simple for you, the Journal Of Discourses (JOD) is not church cannon because it contains stuff like this, that was Brigham Young's opinion, and while he had a lot of great opinions, it's not cannon, it's not doctrine and it's not what we believe.

This would be considered deceptive DU since it is official from the GA as per the following:

"Doctrinal interpretation is the province of the First Presidency. The Lord has given that stewardship to them by revelation. No teacher has the right to interpret doctrine for the members of the Church"
President Ezra Taft Benson, "The Gospel Teacher and His Message" as found in LDS manual "Charge to Religious Educators," pp.51-52

Young’s teachings, recorded in JOD, constitute doctrinal interpretation and as the prophet those teachings are a valid reference to mormon doctrine.

Even Godzilla does not want to examine too closely the way the Trinity was added to the Catholic Church, let me make the logic simple for you so you can understand.

You know, it is very rude not to ping a person, especially since you are making them a point in your discussions. Is this so that you can have a chance to lie about me and may be getting it past me behind my back? In regards to my avoiding Hippolytus' cited in the other post. I went through that in detail a while back– pointing to your deliberate mis-defining of terms and taking the writings out of context – example being the small section cited out of chapter X are dwarfed by the orthodox presentation of the Trinity in the preceding chapters, plus it does not account for you deliberate misinterpretation here.

Regarding these

There is evidence that many maybe even most Christians before 300 AD believe in a pysically separate Jesus and God the father. (See my page for some examples.)

Your link doesn’t work, but that is fine, lets examine this evidence.

There is evidence that there was a controversy taking place for some time before 325 AD.

There were challenges to the nature of God even before the second half of the first century, in every respect shown in the NT as the Trinitarian view being correct, in contrast to mormon polytheism.

There is evidence that Constantine had a political motive in messing with the Christain religion.

Big deal, the discussions were founded on the NT and OT scripture, not Constantine.

There is evidence that Constantine convened the Nicene council, set the agenda and participated whenever it suited him.

So what, the writings and doctrine that came out of Nicea do not reflect the Roman/Pagan plurality of gods, as would have been expected, but the established Trinitarian view of Christ and the apostles.

On op of all this "Evidence" against the Trinity being an "Apocraful" teaching, Anti Momorns love to Cite Revelataions and tell mormons nothing can be added tothe Bible, but this was an addition.

More commonly the teachings were Gnostic, not apocrypha (get your terminology correct please). In regards to the Revelation prohibition, it is still valid to Joey because of the unsupported changes he made to Revelation.

anti's love to tell us that anyone who teaches any other gospel than paul taught will be accursed, yet paul never taught the trinity.

Paul did not teach trinity by name but clearly his teachings about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are hung upon the central premise of the trinity.

To sum up, the Trinity, is the doctrine that Joseph smith was talking about when he said that all other religions were an abomination before God, that's the sticking point for our two points of view. Even Godzilla does not want to get into a discussion about this, but you do? I double Dog dare you and Godzilla, Start a thread about the Trinity and how it came to be, invite all the Momrons over and see how well you do defending this actual tenet of your faith , you won't because you can't.

This is definitely disingenuous on your part DU. You previously complained that you were no longer going to reply to me because my posts were too large, and you have not pinged me to this. Further, you lie about my not wanting to discuss this. I’ve gone over this issue with you on numerous previous posts. You are deliberately being deceiving in this claim – or are you going to try to pull a Hillery again? Or are you going to ignore me like you have SINCE you complained about the size of my posts and said you would not respond any more. Go ahead and shoot your mouth off again fluffy.

Don't accuse me of quote mining unless you can prove it!

In another post this thread that you were too afraid to respond to, you stated specifically that you were quote mining. You better get some sauce for that crow.

That's very interesting, so you get to attack our church on the job? It explains a lot, I am a part timer, as I have a day job, yet I give you and Godzilla trouble, this is funny...

Yes, especially since you have been avoiding me.

You and Godzilla "teach what you ought not for filthy lucre", these scriptures were written for you.

I earn my living DU (very BIG grin), my money has been earned honestly – in contrast to the modern term dishonest gain

. This is a personal attack on my self and Conservativegramma. Your momma should have warned you while shooting off your mouth not to shoot yourself in the foot at the same time

President Monson is a paid employee of the LDS Church as are all the Quorum of the Twelve ( Apostles and the First Presidency). So too, your tithes pay for apologists like FARMs aka Maxwell institute, you have paid church employees in SLC and elsewhere. Paul clearly taught that a minister had the right to pay in return for his work (1 Corinthians 9:1-14). Paul calls it a "right" of the minister to reap material benefit from those who receive spiritual leadership.

You are right about one thing, I was rebuked, by you and Godzilla, many other posters here have expressed sharp disapproval and reproved me , they are also wrong just as you and Godzilla are. (if you are going to use words, learn what they actually say, you keep embarrassing yourself with this word rebuke like it proves you were right, and I have been making fun of you for weeks, the joke's getting a little stale, so I'm letting you in on it now...)

:) I know what words mean fluffy, and you have been found over and over with no reply to the Greek interpretation and context of the NT condemnation of polygamy. As you are so fond, this is argument by repetition – I simply call it stuck on stupid.

The meanings of these words is easy to find:
mia: "Mia is a Feminine particle meaning One or first, or the first one of"

Misleading again, eh fluffy. Show me what concordance or lexicon says that it can be the first one of . Try Thayers Lexicon where mia is defined as an cardinal number – period.

gune: "Adult female or wife."
aner: "Adult male or husband"

Let's consider this logically, are you actually saying that a scripture in greek that can be translated to be "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of (a or at least) one wife", should be translated in such a way as to make Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, and Moses ineligible to be priesthood leaders? The cognitive dissonance must be debilitating.

The cognitive dissonance is debilitating only on your part DU. Since you cannot define mia correctly, you cannot interpret the passage correctly. The most literal translation is mia gune aner - one women man (cue country western music). At least one woman man makes absolutely no sense – both in greek as well as in english. And since there is no priesthood in the mormon sense of the definition, so what.

Since you are big on the word rebuke, I rebuke you and mia was not translated from the Greek correctly, not that it was on purpose, but those translating it put their own bias on the translation, and their bias was against polygamy, and even against marriage for priests, let alone plural marriage.

Put up or shut up DU. Mia as translated by Thayer, strongs and many others does not have a component that allows for an interpretation of at least, cardinal numbers do not do that. You deliberately mistranslate the scripture to fraudulently make you points.

Man, you must really be frustrated to resort to ad homonym attacks this late into a thread when the Mod has already been pinged here several times... Mod, if you are reading this, I don't mind, don't ban her, please.

DU, in view of your disingenuous comments regarding me, as well as flat out lies about me – already pointed out to you prior to your post to CG but carried on anyway – it is you that should take a warning. You have resorted to ad homonym attacks on me in your post, yet you weren’t man enough to ping me. You have demonstrated in this post alone that I am answering, your dishonesty and willingness to stoop to new lows. I think the Mod should review your comments about me behind my back.

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.