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.”

Well I can see DU is still corrupting the Greek text of I Timothy 3:2. So I am going to once again respond to this in depth. I’m not going to do this for DU for he is lost in darkness and isn’t going to pay attention anyhow. I’m doing this for everyone else so that you may have the true facts regarding the use of the Greek word Mia/Heis/Hen in the NT, as a defense against the Mormon apologists who continue to corrupt the text.

DU will try and claim that “Mia” may mean “First” which is completely wrong. This assertion shows a complete ignorance of NT Greek and its usage. (Not surprising since Mormons do corrupt NT Greek on a regular basis). I’m going to break this down as follows:

1. Mia/Heis/Hen is only translated first 8 times in the NT….The Greek word Protos is used to translate “First” the other times throughout the NT. In each of these 8 times it is a passage dealing with calendar time. In no other instance is Mia/Heis/Hen EVER translated first, because it means ONE.

2. Those 8 times dealing with calendar time are done because of the Hebrew idiom underlying the phrase so that the phrase would make sense in English. Biblical Hebrew does not have ordinal numbers. An ordinal number is a number we know of as first, second, third, etc. relating to calendar time. Early Hebrews did not understand this concept for Old Hebrew only recognized cardinal numbers (1, 2, 3 etc.) The phrase where ‘Mia’ is translated ‘first’ recognizes the Hebrew idiom underlying the phrase. (Note: No such idiom exists in I Tim. 3:2, since this passage does not refer in any way to calendar time).

3. The only places within the NT where ‘Mia/Heis/Hen’ is translated ‘first’ is in for example Matt. 28:1; Luke 24:1; Mark 16:2; John 20:1; John 20:19; Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2 where we see the phrase first day of the week. When these phrases are taken word for word into the English languages it makes no sense to an English speaking person. The literal translation is as follows:

Τῇ δὲ μι.ᾷ τῶν σαβ.βά.των = te mia ton sabbaton. This is literally translated the one of the Sabbaths. To us (English speakers) we say: HUH? What the heck does that mean????? On the other hand were the NT Greek writers to have written ‘the first day of the week’ the early NT era saints would have said: HUH? What the heck does that mean??? (Because they did not understand the concept of an ordinal number, i.e, first in the sense of calendar time). They understood perfectly the concept of a first day of the week by the phrase: the one of the Sabbaths, but we don’t. So here the English translation of te mia ton sabbaton has been rendered in English ‘the first day of the week’ even though mia doesn’t mean first, it means ONE and the words for day and week aren’t even in the passage. The translation of ‘Mia’ as ‘first’ in this passage is idiomatic, and not literal as explained specifically in relation to calendar time. To repeat: Because of the Hebrew idiom underlying the phrase where ‘Mia’ is translated ‘first’ (not having ordinal numbers within biblical Hebrew) when one needed to say ‘the first day of the week’ it would have to say, ‘week, day one’. When this was then translated into NT Greek, they preserved the Hebrew idiom and said ‘the one of the sabbaths’ – meaning FIRST, but actually saying ONE! Mia/Heis/Hen has never meant anything other than ONE or day ONE or ONE WIFE, or anything else!! To suggest that because of the underlying Hebrew idiom within the translation of ‘first day of the week’ somehow now transposes over into I Timothy 3:2 and the requirement of one wife, so that ‘one wife’ may now mean ‘first wife’ is a complete adulteration of the text and demonstrates a woeful ignorance of NT Greek and Hebrew. In a nutshell, such a translation is a corruption. I would also add that NO reputable Greek scholars, translators, or teachers accept this as anything other than corruption. The ONLY ‘scholars’ (and I use the term loosely) who do this seek to justify polygamy.

4. Furthermore, to attempt to translate ‘Mia’ as ‘First’ in a non-calendar time passage ignores standard Greek Grammar textbooks. At the very least it shows ignorance of syntax:

“The first day of the month or week is designated in the NT as in the LXX, not by prote, but by mia….the model was Hebraic where all the days of the month are designated by cardinals.” (Blass/Debrunner/Funk, topic 247, ‘syntax of numerals’).

5. The normal NT Greek word for ‘First’ is protos, not Mia/Heis/Hen. In fact there is even one passage ‘the first day of the week’ that is translated using πρώτῃ ‘protei’ the adjective dative singular feminine of protos in Mark 16:9! There it did not even use Mia/Heis/Hen. Other examples:

Romans 1:8 - First, I thank my God….proton, adverbial form
Romans 1:16 – to the Jew first……..proton
Romans 10:19 - First, Moses saith…..protos
I Cor. 15:45 – the first man Adam…….protos
I Cor. 15:47 – the first man of the earth…protos
I Timothy 2:13 – For Adam was first formed, then Eve - protos

And these are just a few examples demonstrating that in I Timothy 3:2 Paul would not have used ‘mia’ to mean ‘first wife’ if that was his intent! He would have said this:

protas gunaikos andra (I Timothy 3:2) not mia gunaikos andra!

6. People like DU who corrupt the Greek in I Timothy 3:2 trying to find some sort of biblical support for polygamy in this passage – also take it a step further – and corrupt the Greek again in I Timothy 5:9 (ἑ.νὸς ἀν.δρὸς γυ.νή = henos (correct grammatical form of heis) andros gune or ‘ONE man woman (wife)’. Here Greek illiterates insist that heis may mean ONE here but not in I Timothy 3:2 which is absurd. Where ever Mia/Heis/Hen is found the meaning never changes! Mia is feminine, Heis is masculine, Hen is neuter = they all mean exactly the same thing = ONE! As I stated in my post Post #3503 mia/heis/hen all mean exactly the same thing! Other than spelling and pronunciation, the only difference is grammatical gender.

It is a complete adulteration of the grammar to suggest that ‘mia may mean first’ in I Tim. 3:2 and then say ‘Heis means one’ in I Tim. 5:9! NO! If you are going to insist on corrupting the meaning of ‘Mia’ in I Tim. 3:2 as ‘first’ then the grammar demands that you do the SAME in I Tim. 5:9! But they won’t do this, why? Because if you keep the grammatical construction consistent then I Tim. 5:9 becomes “first man woman” or “first husband woman” and you’ve just instituted polyandry!! There is no middle ground here. If you’re going to adulterate I Timothy 3:2 as proof of polygamy then you HAVE TO agree with polyandry as well. And I frankly don’t see that anywhere within the LDS which proves just how far these apologists will go to promote their heresies.

This is tremendously important. Mormons (LDS) claim to have the ‘restored gospel’. They claim to be the only ones who can properly translate the Bible, all others are mis-translated. Its in their articles of faith. Yet, here is a quintessential example of clear-cut mangling of the Greek text! How can you mangle the text and still claim to be the ‘only source of truth?’ Sorry, it don’t wash. So wake up people, the LDS doesn’t have the truth, they are a CULT, and this manipulation and corruption of the text prove this concisely.

I hope I have helped those of you who are seriously interested in studying NT Greek. I would recommend the following site: Greek Bible Study Aid for those of you without a Lexicon or Concordance. It can be a good tool even if you do have them. Once you know the original language, or begin to get a grasp of it, you can easily spot the twisting and corruption that the LDS do with the text and you’ll recognize them for the cult that they are.

I Said: 1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. That's pretty simple and that is our theology,

U Said: That is if you are into Greek Mythology.

Actually, as a computer nerd, that'd be Geek mythology.

I Said: Again with the fantasy world? Polygamy can be very confusing simply because people did not understand what they were doing (like the women who were claiming their children were Joseph's when he never slept with them and genetic studies prove the children were not his.) that can make for confusing stories, the woman who claimed to be a wife of Joseph's until it was proved she was never even in the same state with him before he died. That whole thing is a mess, polygamy is not supposed to b that way, but it was.

U Said: Becomes even more confusing when you deliberately misstate Joey's history too (Is this another lie????) First you go for the Joey wasn't a polygamist, next you swerve into red herring stories of other wives - ignoring the documented ones he married, but he never slept with them - inspite of the biographies of those same women who make it clear otherwise. No kids, well fertility only happens over a short period and Joey couldn't live his second life for fear of Emma, and who knows, maybe Joey's little joeys just weren't that perky. Confused, DU's answers with conflicting answers, he lives in the state of confusion - probably has his own zip code by now.

Wow, Apparently little old me is really getting under your skin, first there's the deliberate belittling of Joseph Smith by constantly calling him Joey, which is an obvious attempt to tick me of and have me respond unreasonably, LOL!
Second, you claim I am Deliberately misstating history and ask if that 's a lie.
Third, You say I said Joseph was not a polygamist, I NEVER said that.
As for the never slept with them, wasn't i just told that about Moses and his other wife? LOL! Is there any documented proof that Joseph ever fathered children with any of these polygamous wives? Is there any proof that Joseph was fertile? Is there any proof these other women were fertile?

Fourth, you claim Joseph was infertile? ROTFLOL! Joseph had nine children by Emma, nine, how many children do you have Godzilla?

This is funny, you claim to be this intellectual giant, yet your Attacks boil down to Derogatory names, calling your opponent a liar, misstating your opponents position, and the questioning of manhood of someone who is dead. Not very impressive, off night?

Now that I have dispatched with your prurient red herrings, back to the Question, do you have any proof that the Bible forbids the practice of polygamy?

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.