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

Go San Angelo ^ | 5 April 08 | Paul A. Anthony

[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.”

[SkyPilot]

Why is the picture upsetting them? Why isn’t Carolyn smiling? Why are the others mostly “plump” when these women in El Dorado look so thin?

Freeper Utah Binger wrote a couple of days ago that LDS relatives of his were asking him why females who were very overweight were "Temple Worthy" by those that drank a Coke were not?

Utah - if I misrepresented what you said, please let me know.

[SkyPilot]

Vioper! Jentile!

[Osage Orange]

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.

Ummmm....DU, let me remind you it's EXACTLY what the followers of Brigham Young ( the mormons of that time ) believed. Ancestors of the present day mormons. Were they all deceived by their prophet? Were they all hoodwinked? How can that be? How were they to know what was Truth, and what wasn't, when their prophet was saying things like the following???

Brigham Young said, "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture." (Journal of Discourses 13:95)

There's no misinterpreting what he said there...

It was said in ENGLISH...it wasn't messed up with interpretation, and the passing of time, as it was only a few years ago...compared to Biblical times.

Can modern day mormons just pick and choose what their prophets have said? Apparently so........

It appears some mormon's are so caught up in deception....they don't know the head from the tail.

[sevenbak]

Catching up here, but not really. Looks like another couple thousand posts. This post is intended to catch up on several topics, since I won't be perusing them all.

Thank you EVERYONE who offered condolences on the passing of my niece with Downs. She truly was a good soul, in every way.

Color, I went back through the history a bit last week, it's only archived for a year. I do remember though totally being taken aback about your claim that Abraham was lusting after a hot young thing, or something to that effect. Adulterer you did call him specifically, along with several others. The pedophile comment was someone else, as I said. But, unless you want to reiterate what you said, it's gone now. I'd gladly look it up to defend what I said if I could. I don not buy everyones claim that he was an adulterer. God works through his righteous prophets, not blatantly wicked men. Although it was prior to the Ten Commandments, we know from Joseph's experience with Potiphars wife, it was considered a “sin against God”. His prophets just didn't do that.

[sevenbak]

Well, we'll call this a real fast way to catch up, skip to the end. ;-)

Do you have no shame? Context is key, my FRiend. The numerous anti sites never give you the whole quote do they, you must try to look them up once and a while. Here ya go, the part you snipped is in bold. To understand the context of the quote that you are using, let's look at the entire paragraph of your reference.

“Well, brethren and sisters, try and be Saints. I will try; I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this [discourse] go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. But if they are plead with, and led along like children, we may come to understand the will of the Lord and He may preserve us as we desire.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, Page 95)

President Young had two prerequisites for calling a sermon scripture. First, he needed to review the sermon and make any necessary corrections. Second, it had to be identified as scripture.

It should be noted that very few of the recorded sermons of Brigham Young were reviewed for correctness by the him. Even fewer sermons were announced as scripture. For the most part, President Young's sermons were given on an impromptu basis and hand recorded by third parties when he spoke. Since only Jesus Christ was perfect and infallible, it is not surprising that some of his sermons are erroneously transcribed. The fact that President Young required a statement to be reviewed and corrected before it is called scripture presupposes errors in some of the impromtu remarks that were recorded by third parties.

Occasionally, the critics make the argument that Brigham Young had plenty of opportunity to correct the Journal of Discourses for any errors. Therefore, they make the argument that it must be considered scripture by default. However, as noted above, President Young taught that for a statement to be considered scripture it must be positively identified as such. He did not say “assume it's scripture unless I say otherwise.”

[sevenbak]

Another quote from Brigham on this very topic. "Brother Orson Hyde referred to a few who complained about not getting revelations. I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything of the kind in this place, but in the councils of the nations--that Brigham Young has said 'when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture.' I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God, without any special command to one man to go here, and to another to go yonder, or to do this or that, or to go and settle here or there. " (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.264)

Say what you will about Brigham Young, but all his sermons were most defiantly not considered scripture.

[Diamond]

Rib shmib...

It's been a while, but I still havn't seen an answer from DelphiUser to any of my questions in #3387.

Cordially,

[sevenbak]

Oh, and Elsie, this is directed to you and your ceaseless question about why Joseph Smith singled out Presbyterianism at the age of 14 after the First Vision.

His Mother, and 3 of his siblings had joined the Presbyterian Church, others of his family had joined the Methodists. He was talking to his mother, who was a member of that denomination.

Here is the reference.

http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/7#7

[Enosh]

http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/17#17

One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

Pop-n-Son appear together, eh? So much for the Trinity.

Exodus 20:18 gives a different picture of what happens when the Father wants to chat.

[greyfoxx39]

Over here. Seven answers some questions.

[colorcountry]

I never said Abraham was “lusting after some hot young thing.”

I do not know what Abraham’s mindset was. I do know that he was swayed by Sarai to take her handmaiden Hagar in order to thwart the will of God in giving him a son.

Going against God’s will always results in suffering. It did so in this case also.

You are being totally deceptive on this one. I said Abraham was an adulterer. He fits the definition. Perhaps it wasn’t known as adultery during his time as the “law” had not been given, it certainly is now.

[Colofornian]

Say what you will about Brigham Young, but all his sermons were most defiantly not considered scripture.

I thought LDS regard its general authorities as having complete worldwide authority over its church. So what? Are you telling us that Brigham's authority on what he said stopped at his pulpit because it was printed on LDS "Scripture?"

Pray tell, Seven...tell us...how many general authorities' words since Joseph Smith died have actually made it onto LDS "Scriptural" pages. (Not very many) That's not very authoritative is it...to have a so-called Amos 3:7 "prophet" who is handcuffed in his authority unless or until his words finally reach "sacred" printed status?

Also, you wanna tell us if D&C 132 wasn't "Scripture" until 1876, why did the LDS run headlong into its practice well before then?

[conservativegramma]

Seven answers some questions

IMO not very well. In his posts #3646 & #3645 he 'tries' to prove that 'in context' Young didn't consider his own words Scripture and failed miserably. I've read through the entire context and I saw nothing that refuted Young's belief that what he said should be considered 'Scripture'.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

CC,

Clearly King David WAS lusting after what he saw,
when he slept with Bathsheba. So we know it happened -
even to those God chose.

ampu

[MHGinTN]

Delf will not give you a direct answer, it’s not in his nature to do so since his modus operendi is deception. The cult of mormonism appears to be a very persistent demonic manifestation.

[colorcountry]

You are correct when speaking of David.

Of course Mormons believe that David can never reach the Celestial Kingdom because he committed murder, and murder is only forgiven through the shedding of ones blood. I guess Christs blood isn’t good enough.

(said only slightly tongue in cheek)

[DelphiUser]

U Said: Delf, can’t you at least get it straight what I’ve communicated? I Said: You need to realize that perhaps one of the reasons God still blessed Abram despite his adultery is because it occurred prior to his Gen. 17 covenant AND, as is also true of Jacob, both lived in pre-10 Commandments era where God finally specifically addressed adultery.

So, God blessed Abraham for his righteousness because he would be righteous in the future, even though he was committing adultery now, and the adultery was OK because Moses hadn't written the ten commandments yet? (IE according to you, God is changing the rules) Man, I wish I had lived before there were commandments, it would be easy to be righteous!

U Said: You responded: I really hate to rain on your rearranging of the Bible, but Abraham becomes polygamous in Gen 16 right before God blesses him in Gen 17 and makes his covenant with him for his righteousness. You have the order mixed up, according to the Bible, it's Polygamy then blessings...

OK, so now you are saying it's polygamy wasn't a sin yet because God hadn't gotten around to banning it, so Abraham was still righteous? This makes no sense to me. U Said: Delf, take another look @ what I said…we both agree to what I said: I said it occurred ”prior to his Gen 17 covenant…”

My point? If you look at the spiritual lives of folks, they do all kinds of things (including adultery) in their pre-covenant years!

That's a pretty neat escape you are trying to execute there, except God does not say that people are righteous when they convert, that takes a little time. Besides, if this was pre covenant, then why had Abraham (if you are correct, a non believer non covenant person) Promised posterity by the lord (Gen 12), Praying to God at an alter he built, and Promised Children (Gen 13), Paying tithes (Gen 14), Promised offspring (Gen 15), and you are postulating that his polygamy (adultery in your version) in Gen 16 is OK because he hadn't made any covenants to God until Gen 17?

Your logic is ... well not logical.

I Said: Colofornian, didn't you just ask me not to post to you?

U Said: (No, I didn’t ask you that at all…more, not keeping my communication straight).

Well, I thought you were one of those asking me to drop you from my ping list.

U Said: Delf, can’t you understand why a number of posters no longer want to receive posts from you?

Yes, you overestimate how much I care about that. If I was running a popularity contest, I wouldn't be a professing Mormon.

"It wasn't meant for the church to be popular or all hell would want to join us" -- Brigham young.

U Said: For one thing, you seem to underestimate the sentiment vs. polygamy.

I don't care about sentiment, I care about truth, and I am not going to play to the "Crowd" I am perusing truth and nothing but the truth.

IMHO, most people respect that even if they don't admit it, and if they don't, I'll still pursue truth anyway.

U Said: For another, even a century ago (1906) the LDS Church’s hand was finally forced (in defense of its newly elected Senator, Reed Smoot), to ex-communicate two apostles who had taken plural wives in the previous post-Manifesto years.

Any one who polygamously married after the Manifesto absolutely should have been excommunicated, and neither you or I know the relationship to elected senators.

U Said: So could you please explain in a nutshell why you continue to defend a practice that if you engaged in would get you ex-communicated from your own church?

I am not defending the illegal practice of polygamy (it's the 12th article of faith), I am defending the moral and biblical principle of Polygamy. Abortion is specifically condemned in the Bible, yet, it is legal in the United States of America.

Legality is not morality, and I hesitate to call anyone a conservative who thinks they are the same thing.

Understand that I think the perverts in Texas should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Many of the things they did were Immoral, polygamy like prayer and Studying the Bible are not among the things they did that were immoral Polygamy is moral and illegal, abortion is immoral and legal, can I make this more clear?

Most of you know I am a high functioning autistic because it's true and I don't hide it because it's true. Most here know they I am somewhat OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder), so I am standing for a point, that polygamy as far as anyone has been able to actually prove (arguments have been made, but they so far are all flawed) that the Bible actually condemns polygamy, instead, I find unrefuted evidence that God seems to care far more about the Permanency and quality of the relationships in families than the number of female partners.

Prove me wrong Please! Proof, not poor translation, not interpretation, not assumption, prove it, or admit that it can't be proved.

I Said: One of the hallmarks of God's touch is that he uses imperfect Men like you and me and Joseph and Moses to do his perfect work. [DU]

U Said: I’m imperfect, yes indeed. You?

I don't want to take the time to list all my flaws, besides people already complain about the size of my posts, suffice it to say my flaws a many and varied, and I am more aware of some than others, indeed if God told me I would live long enough to deal with all my flaws it would change my investment strategy significantly....

U Said: What about the command to “Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48)

That is one of my favorite topics actually, the Be used is very specific, it is a state of being "be" it is a command to keep the commands, it is not be ye therefore perfected, but "be ye therefore perfect" U Said: Me? I’m no god-wannabe or what your prophets call a “god in embryo.” Can you make that same claim?

Why would you want to be less than God created you to be?

U Said: You don’t seek exaltation?

Of course I seek Exaltation, God has commanded me to.

U Said: You mean to tell me there are “imperfect” gods?

no, if anyone is to become a God, all their imperfections will be swallowed up in Jesus' atonement, they will be perfect from then on and they will become Co-inheritor with Christ.

U Said: Ah, you point out not everything legal is moral…why is this relevant again? Is bigamy or polygamy “legal.” (No? Then why waste the time mentioning it?) Oh, but then you jump to not everything immoral is illegal. In your eyes, how does bigamy and polygamy pertain to that again? I mean, from your perspective polygamy IS “moral.” I guess you just had to throw that meaningless phrase in there because it would have been totally eye-opening for posters to see you state what you really believe: Not everything moral (like polygamy) is legal. But, no, you didn’t mention that in your couplet, did you Delf? You stuck to safe points of agreement like “not everything legal is moral” and “not everything immoral is illegal” instead of highlighting what you actually believe: “Not everything moral is legal.”

I bring it up because it's obvious that some people think that if polygamy is illegal, it's also immoral, and that's logical construct I also refuse!

You spend lots of time in you're dreary block of text telling me what I believe, when it's not what I say I believe, which of us knows better what I believe you or me? Now you could call me a liar, where I will merely say that you are mistaken.

I Said: You could claim that, but you'd be wrong...Ex. 21: 22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

U Said: Delf, talk about desperate. You give a clear Scripture talking about miscarriage (unintentional death of a preborn) & treat it as if it’s an intentional abortion. (You are sadly spiritually sick, Delf, IF you believe that all women who’ve had miscarriages—or if they’ve had an accident caused by a male close to them that results in a miscarriage—are guilty of intentional abortion!!!)

Again you display your fundamental lack of reading skills, this passage has nothing to do with unintentional, spontaneous miscarriages, it talks about men striving with women and causing them to lose the baby being liable for their actions before a judge. I have not and do not believe that a spontaneous miscarriage is equal to a miscarriage caused by a man beating up a woman. I never said any such repugnant thing and your attempt to characterize this scripture as such merely shows the morally bankrupt position you have to hold to post from the perspective that you do.

U Said: Hey, now you’re “stealing” my parallel arguments

Suicide, homicide, matricide, patricide, arkincide, all have one particle in common, cide. Cide means to kill. I referenced a scripture that specifically forbids killing, no parallel argument on my part. The rest of your drivel on this falls apart here.

U Said: Pray tell, then, Delf. Please show us all the Old Testament Hebrew word for “polygamy.” (What verses is it in?) Surely you can go to any KJV index and tell me where to find the word “polygamy.” Surely you can go to Joseph Smith’s perfect JST version of the Bible and tell me where Smith “translated” the English word, “polygamy.” (Go ahead, we’re all anxious to see those verses that mentions “polygamy” or “polygamous”…Come on, Delf, as you know “words mean things,” so if adultery and polygamy didn’t mean the same thing, why we’d see that “polygamy” has it’s set-apart word, wouldn’t we?).

the word is Wife. as in second wife, third wife,then there is also Concubines If marriage is indeed valid in a polygamous state, then it will still be called marriage, not marriages. If you have a one car garage it is called a garage, if you have a two car garage it is still called by the same name, not Garages, polyparking.

Wife is the answer, marriage is the answer, concubine is the answer, all depending on how you are using it.

U Said: In making this argument, you further said: I realize that my position is one that will get me pilloried verbally here, but I am consistent and true in my interpretations of the Bible and I will not deviate from that course tough scorn be heaped upon me from all sides, it is what eh Bible says, it is what many of the fathers of your own churches say, it is the truth and I will not depart from the truth.

What? “Polygamy” is “what the Bible says,” where? What verse uses that word that you sanction with such holiness attached to it?

Have you been listening Reading? the Bible approves of polygamy in several ways. A prophets who are at that moment polygamous are specifically called righteous by God. No one in the bible is ever reproved for polygamy, Bah, truly, there are none so blind as those who will not see. You don't see polygamy in the Bible, but you do see the word Trinity, there may be no help for you.

U Said: Prove it. (Please provide the death date of Moses’ first wife and the marriage date of his next wife) Obviously, we don't have birth, death an marriage dates, however, we can prove they were his wives at the same time from the bible, rather than include all the logic here, I'll just link you to the pro polygamy "Christian" page I got that from: POLYGAMY

I Said: God uses all men in spite of their sins, but he never calls a man committing a gross sin his Friend, or a man after mine own heart. Yes, David messed up big time later, yes Moses was slow of speech, God called them because they would follow his command, not because they were defying him.

U Said: First of all, why do you focus on Moses being slow of speech when I cited he was guilty of “murder.” (So "slow of speech" is the worst moral indictment you can bring yourself to accuse Moses of? Are you being deliberately deceptive in ignoring his murder of an Egyptian, or are you not wanting to face the truth here? (Or, is it that you don’t regard the murder of Egyptians as qualifying under your “gross sin” category?)

Moses tried to save fellow Hebrew who was being beaten, he did not set out to murder the Egyptian, the Egyptian tried to kill him for stopping the beating, then in the fight, the Egyptian died. If Moses had resumed his princely position, and claimed to have killed the man for some slight, it would have been a matter of no consequence, as it was he acted as a Hebrew and fled, that is why the Egyptians called it murder, all they knew was some Hebrew killed am Egyptian. because this is so muddied, I did not use it.

U Said: David, too, was guilty of manslaughter in pursuit of adultery. So that’s not a “gross sin,” as well?—that’s only a “mess up big time?” (Is a “mess up big time” Mormonese for covering up a bigger sin that still keeps their “worthiness” intact?)

Fine, you would prefer Gross sin for which he was damned by Nathan in 2 Samuel? Let's review the Actual scriptures:
2 Sam. 12:7 - 9

7 ¶ And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. 9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

Note that David's sins are Killing an innocent man, and taking his wife, not the Wives David did have (which God said he gave David) and God said if that was not enough he would have given him more, (such and such things...)

U Said: Beyond that, so now we have in the person of you Mr. Legalist who is able to classify all sins in a single bounce?

It's not easy being me, I just make it look that way...

Oh come on! It was a joke!

I don't classify sins, but i can read what God does...

U Said: So, Peter not confessing Jesus in public—denying him three times—I guess that’s easy for you to classify after the fact that this series of sins was some sort of Mormon misdemeanor, but Judas betraying Jesus was sin of the highest order worthy only of blood atonement, eh?

To my mind there is a big difference between lying to save your skin, and lying to kill someone else. I suppose you would felt he need to tell a bank robber who was trying to shoot you that his safety was on? (I could let that bit of honesty slide as I tackled him...)

U Said: Or next you’ll tell us that Jonah’s sin of abandoning his mission field was a Mormon misdemeanor, eh? (Boy, wait til your Mission President hears you downplaying that sin!!! It might put your temple recommend at risk!)

A) I returned many years ago from my mission
B) I never said that, you did, God will judge, not me and as far as I know there is no such thing as a Mormon misdemeanor... (nice consonance though)

I Said: If you are a spouse, you are not committing adultery.

U Said: Are you serious?

Yes.

U Said: Let’s say you have a pedophile who preys upon a victim and tells the underaged girl that they will have a (mock) wedding so that it’s “OK” in the eyes of God & man. (And this is a parallel to what this thread is all about!!!) Are you seriously telling us that if this pedophile finds some person who will “solemnize” a (mock) wedding [you have to remember that some LDS unions were solemnized between 1890 and 1910 outdoors with no other witness than the person doing the solemnizing], that the victim is by definition a “spouse?”

Absolutely not. Any wedding that is illegal will not make adultery, or fornication moral in God's eyes. I have never argued that pedophilia, torture, or any Coercion was moral, I think what these Guys (I will not call them men) did down there in Texas with holding people's heads under water until the agreed, maying girls who were legally unable to marry, and yes committing polygamy were breaking the law, and should be punished according to that law. I think the torture, and marring outside of social norms is immoral, I think anyone who is tricking or forcing people to marry are also immoral. Polygamy when practiced legally means not in the USA right now), by consenting adults, who are not being lascivious, is moral in God's view. I also think there are monogamous marriages where Couples choose not to have children, or the marriage is based on Sex, or where it's the third and fourth times around (divorce) that God is not happy with. You may and probably do have another opinion, and that's fine. but if you want to be able to say that polygamy is immoral because it's un-biblical, you should be able to back that up with something that's actually, clearly in the Bible, and it's just not there.

U Said: James cites how the example of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son “made perfect” his faith. You seem, Delf, to be claiming that Abraham’s faith was not true faith until he was willing to sacrifice Isaac.

I did not say that, I merely posted a passage that talks about Faith and works, you are the one straining at flies here.

U Said: But in James 2:23, James is citing Genesis 15:6—which says that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness.

Several places in Genesis God says Abraham is righteous, want a list?

U Said: Who is the Speaker in Gen. 15:6? (God!!!) When did God speak these words?

Which time?

U Said: Was it after Abraham had “made perfect” his faith by offering up his son?
B That is one place...

U Said: (How could you even remotely place that kind of timetable into place! God spoke those words before Isaac was even born! Before he was even conceived!!!

I would agree that God probably also said it before Abraham was born, (that preexistance We Mormons talk about) so yep, then too.

U Said: So, Delf, when are you and all the other Mormons who always try to throw James 2 in the face of Christians going to confess before Almighty God that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness before Abraham did one single thing re: Isaac? (because Isaac was nowhere in sight!!!).

So you are saying works have no effect on righteousness that it's created with us or not and that we have no choice?

Are you a Calvinist?

I will never confess that man has no choice for God commands us to choose all the time, and God will not command men to that which they cannot do.

U Said: Abraham’s offering up of Isaac was a post-faith act.

It was an act of Faith made perfect by Abraham's work in doing it.

U Said: As one author said: It was a fruit and not the root of his faith, thus serving as a visible evidence of his invisible faith.

So, does a man produce fruit but once? (no) The first fruit is simple, but when actions (work) reinforce faith, the next action (work) is greater than the first, because the faith has grown also. Works and faith can form a positive feed back loop that leads one upwards to God.

Simply put polygamy is Biblical. There is no credible evidence to the contrary.

The Guys in Texas were perverts, sadists pedophiles and law breakers of many stripes I hope they are punished according tot eh fullest extent of the law. Including for breaking the laws against polygamy.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Of course Mormons believe that David can never reach the Celestial Kingdom because he committed murder, and murder is only forgiven through the shedding of ones blood. I guess Christs blood isn’t good enough.”

I am entertained when mormons want to be considered Christians,
yet deny the efficacy of Christ’s shed blood to cover all sins
- and try to add their own good works to be good enough. And
then commit idolatry with their intense desire to become god
themselves.

It truly is a bizarre religion - and sadly snares so many
well meaning people into a life of performance on a treadmill
that misses the simple message of the Gospel.

ampu

[DelphiUser]

I Said: Can you, or can you not show where Polygamy is condemned in the Bible, don't jump to Joseph, don't jump to the Book of Mormon, stick to the bible and answer the question. you won't because you can't Jesus condemns Divorce, but not polygamy, The Bible condemns adultery, not polygamy (Moses was polygamous while writing the prohibition on adultery) The bible simply does not say what you say it says...

U Said: I can show you where monogamy is commanded in the Bible. Can you show me where polygamy is specifically approved or commanded in the Bible?

Cool! Finally someone is going to actually answer the question, I'd love to see it, please remember two things in a plural marriage, both Wives are referred to as wife, and the word marriage as far as I have been able to ascertain is both singular and plural, and those are both by their use in the Bible.

That said, I'd love to see your proof.

U Said: You said previously in this thread that Polygamy is Biblical and moral. Do you think the Bible approves of everything it narrates?

No, I don't.

U Said: How many ribs of Adam were used, anyway?

Just one, but then we could also talk of fishes and loaves, Chuckle.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am perfectly willing to stick to scripture and ignore the Lilith tradition I had to bring in when "faced" with "tradition" as an argument, Adam only had one wife, OK?

U Said: In your opinion, assuming for the sake of argument the general story line, are some of the FLDS men and women guilty of polygamy, or committing adultery and fornication?

That is an interesting question, far above the usual for this thread, and that depends on which law you want to look at.

The law of the land (secular law) has outlawed polygamy, so they are definitely secularly guilty of polygamy, even though we have yet to have a prohibition of it from God.

Adultery is not illegal (secular law), but in God's law it is forbidden. in order to have sex and not be guilty of either adultery or fornication, you have to be "Legally and Lawfully married" but legally and lawfully according to which law? I wish the two were the same, but they are not. So my response as I posted on the Link from My page, I think the marriage has to be recognized by Both Secular Law and God's Law, thus the people in Texas were not Legally married, thus it was also adultery.

With my reasoning now clearly (I hope) visible, all the above, but by different laws. Diamond, your post is surprisingly diamond in this bed of Coal, I have been slogging through, thank you.

[Diamond]

Cool! Finally someone is going to actually answer the question, I'd love to see it, please remember two things in a plural marriage, both Wives are referred to as wife, and the word marriage as far as I have been able to ascertain is both singular and plural, and those are both by their use in the Bible.

You didn't say anything about where polygamy is specifically approved or commanded in the Bible, which is one of the questions I asked you. Nevertheless, I said I could show you where monogamy is speciifcally approved or commanded in the Bible. MEGoody already showed them to you. Here they are again:

1 Timothy 3:2 "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach"

1 Timothy 3:12 "Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."

Titus 1:5-6 "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you — if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination."

Now, can you show me statements at least as direct as those approving or commanding polygamy in the Bible?

Adultery is not illegal (secular law), but in God's law it is forbidden. in order to have sex and not be guilty of either adultery or fornication, you have to be "Legally and Lawfully married" but legally and lawfully according to which law? I wish the two were the same, but they are not...

Just as an aside, adultery is still illegal in some states; it's just not enforced very often. But I'm curious about your statement that you wish the two (laws) were the same. Where they are the same, aren't polygamous relations the committing of fornication or adultery? And if, God forbid, the Supreme Court were to someday strike down state laws against bigamy and polygamy, would the very same sort of sexual relations with multiple partners that these FLDS people are enaged in no longer be the committing of fornication or adultery?

Cordially,