| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 03/03/2008 9:42:54 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior |
Posted on 02/22/2008 9:11:12 AM PST by Zakeet
They're called the "Lost Boys," the teenagers kicked out of their homes and communities by leaders of the polygamist Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to ensure there's an ample supply of single, young women who will one day become plural wives. Representative Lorie Fowlke (R-Orem), is running a bill to make this abandonment a felony.
"Estimates are that we've had more than 1,000 children - primarily in southern Utah - thrown out of their homes," Fowlke says. "What we were trying to do with this bill is criminalize this behavior and send a message to this community that they can't just throw away their children."
H.B. 23 adds child abandonment to the definition of child abuse, and makes it a felony crime. It also adds an enhancement if a parent or organization benefits from the child's abandonment to further an illegal enterprise, such as polygamy. This is the case with the FLDS church, says Roger Hoole, a lawyer who represents some of the displaced young men and sits on the board for the Utah Association for Justice. He says the church benefits from kicking out young men who would compete for plural wives. This, he says, has devastating consequences.
"There's a huge impact that's coming, like a tsunami, that's going to hit the state of Utah, when these boys get a little older and realize what has happened to them and get angry," Hoole says. "There's a real problem here."
Fowlke's bill gained unanimous support in a Senate committee this morning, and now heads to the full Senate for consideration.
So...everybody goes to Heaven in the Mormon religion...everybody is saved, just not exalted?
Hell is empty or doesn't exist in Mormonism?
restornu - if colorcountry accurately depicted the Mormon doctrine related to salvation, then you do realize that your statement is deceptive in that the salvation you believe in is not the salvation of Orthodox, New Testament Christianity, right?
If we go back to the Old Testament and the “law”, we find that the shedding of blood was a requirement of atoning for sins through blood sacrifices.
Christians maintain that Christ shed his blood in a final atonement for the sins of all who believe in Him. Early Mormon doctrine taught that certain sins like murder and adultery were not covered by the blood of Christ, and that the only way you could ever be atoned of those heinous sins was by having your own blood spilled. This was a common belief among Mormons in Utah. Up until the 1970’s the State of Utah met with resistance in ending the firing squad in capital murder cases. The reasoning being, that murder was a sin that must be atoned by shedding the blood of the murderer.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2003/s879371.htm
Make that up until 2003 (per the linked article)
Thank you for the explanation. I recall watching a program sometime ago about the firing squad in Utah (it was only one of several different means of capital punishment practices throughout the States and the historical basis for it was not mentioned (that I recall)).
Verbally reported case . . . how convenient and reliable . . .
ROFLOL
yeah, can’t believe and verbally reported eyewitnesses....why, why..they’re probably “anti-mormon.” /s
I know beyond a doubt that Blood Atonement was never practiced as form of being saved!
____________________________________________
Resty you dont know what was practiced 150 years ago...
And what does it matter now...????
If you are equating plural marriage with child abuse, I would recommend that you find a good therapist. Any person that cannot see the difference is either insane or an idiot.
Actually, on this issue, restornu is absolutely correct.
In a nutshell it is reserved for those that have heard, and know Christ yet reject Him. Just never hearing about Him through geography or chronology of birth doesn't count, it has to be rejection after knowing.
So...you are an advocate of plural marriage to teenage girls (as Joseph Smith and other Mormon prophets were)?
You don't see any abuse in the marrying multiple teenage girls?
Given your apparent defense of this practice, one might have to question your calling of anyone else an idiot.
Nice twist on the strawman technique. Are you taking lessons from LC?
Are you a Mormon?
Is this the Mormon doctrine related to Hell and salvation?
This is not what colorcountry stated. He said that Mormon doctrine teaches universal atonement and that exaltation comes by obedience to other Mormon doctrines (such as Baptism in the Mormon Church, and so forth).
In post# 89, you stated that: "If you are equating plural marriage with child abuse, I would recommend that you find a good therapist. Any person that cannot see the difference is either insane or an idiot."
How is it a twist on the strawman technique to conclude, from your statement, that you don't think that plural marriage is abusive to the involved teenage wives (or even the adult ones for that matter)?
Are you referring to Elsie?
restornu said: I know the Doctrine of The Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints teaches that there is no other way but by Jesus Christ our savior, that man can be saved!
pby stated: Really?
So...can a man be saved through faith in Jesus Christ without being baptized in the Mormon Church?
I found this interesting post by a current LDS woman, in a current FR thread.
Glean from it what you will:
I actually should have said “exaltation.” “Salvation” in the sense of resurrection is available to all, but it involves a lot of explanation. In order to gain all the blessings which are available in the Celestial Kingdom, we must have been married in the temple. We will be judged on how we treat our spouses. We expect to be together after this life.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1974490/posts?page=16#16
this is no such thing as the Mormon Church!
The FLDS is to the LDS church as the Westboro Baptist Church is to Baptists. In other words, they are nutcases who use a group name but disagree with many of the base beliefs of the group.
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.