Posted on 04/21/2008 10:23:21 PM PDT by Howdy there
SAN ANGELO, Texas —
In another stage of their public relations campaign to battle stereotypes and speak out against the raid that placed 437 children in state protective custody, the Fundamentalist LDS faithful are speaking out on the Internet.
A pair of Web sites were unveiled Monday in an effort to explain the FLDS beliefs and rally public sympathy behind the polygamous sect.
On captivefldschildren.org, photos and video of the raid were posted showing law enforcement's raid on the YFZ Ranch, Texas child protective services workers rounding up children and putting them on buses, and damage apparently done by law enforcement when they searched the compound.
"This site was created by the FLDS people to help the innocent children that were living at the YFZ Ranch in Eldorado, Texas," the site says, including a link to donations to help defray legal costs. Sources at the YFZ Ranch confirmed that the church was behind the creation of the Web sites. Information about who registered the Internet domain names was run through a Canadian company specializing in ensuring the information is kept private.
Pro-polygamy activist Mary Batchelor e-mailed supporters links to the Web sites on Monday. "I don't know if it's real or not but the pictures on there could only have come from those people," Batchelor said. "I'm excited they're doing this, they're really speaking out."
The companion Web site, fldstruth.org, said its goal is to counter the "many lies" circulating around the church. The site promises to provide facts about the church's doctrines, beliefs and teachings. A photo timeline of the FLDS leaders appears to still be under construction.
"And knowing that truth must be the basis of all righteous considerations as pertains to the great redemption work of our Savior in these latter days; we seek to disabuse the minds of the honest in heart, of the deceptions inherent in reports from malicious and evil disposed persons," the site said.
Once known as secretive and cloistered, the FLDS have gone on a public relations offensive since their children were taken earlier this month. They opened the gates of the Yearning For Zion Ranch to the Deseret News before inviting other news media outlets to visit the compound.
FLDS members have also been guests on "Larry King Live," and other TV talk shows denouncing allegations of abuse and pleading for the return of their children.
Thank you.
Another Gospel.
Galatians 1:6 ¶I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
That Native American Indians are Jewish. Even in the face of DNA evidence to the contrary.
The Book of Mormon, which categorically prohibits and condemns polygamy was published in 1830.
Doctrine and Covenants section 132 (which COMMANDS that faithful LDS Members practice polygamy) was supposedly given to Joseph Smith July 12, 1843, but it was not officially published to the church or the world or included in the Mormon scriptures until 1876.
Either way, it is a dastardly practice.
I didn't ask you whether you believed the book of Mormon to be true, I asked you to tell me what it is that the Book of Mormon teaches that you are adamantly against.
Assuming the Book of Mormon was a work of fiction, is there any specific doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon that you would disagree with?
Frankly, I suspect you don't know anything at all about any specific doctrines that the Book of Mormon actually teaches, do you?
One thing, and one thing only: what’s going on?
What just happened? Crap just get thrown INTO your face?
Roger. Copy that.
Roger THAT. I GET it.
Are they okay in your book because they have rejected polygamy?
Or are they not okay because they still believe the Book of Mormon and accept Joseph Smith as their founder?
Why is that interesting. I believe they have more of a claim to being the legitimate LDS Church than the Utah Church, but they are still following a false prophet.
Are they okay in your book because they have rejected polygamy?
I think it is much more likely that a member of the RLDS Church would come to a saving knowledge of Christ than a Utah LDS member. IIRC they do not believe that they will one day grow up to be a God. Anyone who actually believes that is not a Christian. There is only one God. That is the foundation of both Judaism and Christianity. Mormonism, which teaches that "As man is God once was; as God is man may become." That is blasphemy.
Or are they not okay because they still believe the Book of Mormon and accept Joseph Smith as their founder?
Well, if you follow a false prophet you are on the road to destruction.
This is all such a disturbing mess.
On one hand, Mr. Jeffs recent episode certainly shines considerable suspicion of widespread malfeasance within that community
On the other hand, we have an industry wide, inept, unapoligic, sensationalistic minded tabloid media posing as a legitimate source of information, so we really have no way of knowing what the heck is going on.
There is certainly something disturbing about seeing the “State” declaring nothing short of Marshall Law on a community an separating babies and Moms.
To me, it’s just a disturbing picture to see heavy handed government intervention like this. I can’t help but think that this could have been handled in a more civilized manner; its not like these people are going anywhere.
And if staunch resistance to an investigation were to evolve, they could then add pressure.
I have a funny feeling that if this were a PC protected group, other than pseudo Christians, the entire tactic would have been reconsidered.
This has shades of the Branch Davidians- and the Media Vilified those people at the time if you recall.
Yes, but it is late and I don’t feel like going to get it off the shelf.
If you believe it, I fully support YOUR RIGHT to believe it, but I don’t believe it, won’t believe it and can make no apologies for that.
I don't believe it. That is not the point.
You made a claim that you are adamantly against what the Book of Mormon teaches.
Are you willing to admit that you don't have a clue about what the Book of Mormon teaches?
If not, then what exactly does it teach that you are adamantly against?
Is that too hard to answer?
What do you mean, “It’s not like these people are going anywhere”?
They have a long history of fleeing legal difficulties. They were trying to hide children from the LEOs. I have no doubt a whole bunch would have disappeared if left to their own devices.
Also, they had no legal way to supervise the children inside the compound.
Here is their mission statement (from the site): "Our Mission: We proclaim Jesus Christ and promote communities of joy, hope, love, and peace."
To me, it seems that they are just another Christian denomination.
I couldn't see anywhere on their site that they were following a "prophet" today, false or otherwise.
Here’s the rapist “prophet” telling his story on the internet.
Warning: Strong stomachs only.
http://uk.youtube.com/user/fincenMIB
Ex-cult members and anti-cult people always have strong emotions about the group they left.
I remember the Unification Church people on my college campus and they were truly creepy and looked brainwashed.
But I didn't know how members were indoctrinated although I understood they worshipped Reverend Moon as the Messiah.
So I'm willing to say FLDS is a cult, but they are citizens like everyone else and entitled to due process.
The “Child Abuse” cry drowns out those rights for all kinds of Americans with anonymous phone calls leading to police knocks on people's doors all over the country.
Child protection authorities go after people who don't deserve to be gone after. The Boston columnist Don Feder was involved in such a case years ago and then there was a case where police came out because someone saw a child smacked in a Wal-Mart.
So I'm waiting for more details knowing there are laws about polygamy and an age of consent but wondering if this is the right way and constitutional way to “enforce” them.
The Koran encourages polygamy. Muslims in this country have never been forced to repudiate it. I have an idea: I’m a Romney delegate. I’ll drop a dime on a Muslim family and claim I’m a 16 year old girl being beaten by her husband. Then CPS will swoop down and seize every child in the mosque. I love sticking it to Whitey! This will really foul things up for Obama. Sound like a plan?
Umm. That would be “I love sticking it to People of Color!”
The above might be Miss Swinton’s motivation.
The “other name for it” is ephebophilia. The term was coined only in 1906 by (surprise) proponents of the idea. It is largely used by supporters of the idea. There is no listing of ephebophilia in the DSM paraphilias. So either it’s not a problem at all, or it is not distinguished from pedophilia in DSM classifications.
Yeah, it's not like any cults with charismatic leaders and a penchant for serious top-down control has ever turned into anything bad.
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.