Posted on 01/19/2011 5:37:42 AM PST by Colofornian
Water torture of babies is one way some members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day instil fear of authority, a former member testified Wednesday.
"It's quite common," Carolyn Blackmore Jessop told the constitutional reference case to determine whether Canada's polygamy law is valid. "They spank the baby and when it cries, they hold the baby face up under the tap with running water. When they stop crying, they spank it again and the cycle is repeated until they are exhausted."
It's typically done by fathers and it's called "breaking in," she said.
Ms. Jessop, who is from Arizona, testified about the practice during her testimony in B.C. Supreme Court.
Outside the courthouse, Ms. Jessop said water torture is common enough that there doesn't seem any shame attached to the practice.
In her cousin's baby book, there is a handwritten note by her mother noting that when her daughter was 18 months old, she was becoming quite a handful and, as a result, was being held under the tap on a regular basis.
SNIP
"Polygamy is not pretty to look at. It is nice that it is tucked away in a dark corner where nobody has to see its realities because it's creepy," she told Chief Justice Robert Bauman, adding that her biggest concern is that polygamy and all of its consequent abuses are ignored by the courts and law enforcement.
SNIP
...Her mother's family have been polygamists since Joseph Smith had his revelation about plural marriage in the mid-1800s.
Ms. Jessop was 18 when the prophet determined that she would become 50-year-old Merril Jessop's fourth wife...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
Nice try. Does the Lutheran church adhere to Catholic teachings 99.5% across the board?
Well the fLDS teaching wise adhere to the same things the LDS do. If you tried claiming that they differ on polygamy, guess what? Polygamy is still in the LDS doctrinal book -- hasn't been removed at all....Look @ Doctrine & Covenants 132.
LDS believe polygamy is practiced in the afterlife; and Lds "apostle" Bruce McConkie wrote that LDS will practice polygamy again on earth when their Jesus returns. (Source: Book Mormon Doctrine)
Just because the LDS proselytizes more than fLDS doesn't mean that their teachings on the subject aren't roughly the same. And just 'cause their "orthopraxy" differs in some areas, doesn't mean that they both cannot be labeled orthodox Mormon.
You can't make the same claim about Lutherans re: many, many, many Catholic teachings!
See, using a church that ISN’T the LDS church, and then a PERSON acting without regard to any religious doctrine, doesn’t really make your point, which apparently is that the Mormon Church tortures and kills kids by drowning.
First of all this thread wasn't my idea. You see, Canada is exploring legalizing polygamy. They called in this witness to was once fLDS to find out what they practice.
Obviously, many there have some abusive practices. They also embrace polygamy.
And this witness testified to both.
The question isn't at all what you make it out to be. It's obvious that the fLDS has become a distinct branch of Mormonism. (So what?)
What this story was about was this witness testifying to what the fruit has been of Joseph Smith...one of which was polygamy...still carried on to this day by the fLDS -- and the LDS would say it's still going on in the afterlife!
As for the torturing kids under water...it'd be like if you, Charles, started your own cult. And then one of your grandkids decided to keep your cult -- only develop a same-teaching offshoot of it with a few distinct practices.
If your grandkids' version of that cult embraced water torture -- but you didn't -- how are we to say that you weren't involved in seeding your grandkids' version of the cult?
The issue isn't always what practice does the LDS church sanction...cause it obviously doesn't sanction putting kids under water & torturing them like that.
The question on the table is: What did Joseph Smith spawn?
Are you trying to now say that polygamy is unrelated to Joseph Smith?
Are you trying to now say that the Lds "prophets" choices to continually choose isolated areas to practice things like polygamy is unrelated to Lds "prophets'" decisions in the past on where to live?
And that is the very question YOU & your allies, the Mormons, tend to not address...now is it?
I don’t know if “99.5%” is the right number, but if you examined the entirety of the belief systems of Lutherans and Catholics, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that out of each 200 things on the list, they agreed on 199 of them.
There are thousands of doctrinal, theological, or practical points of faith that Lutherans share with Catholics. Whereas there might be a few more than 95 things they don’t agree with (Yes, I’m being too cute there, as there are disagreements not in the 95 theses, and also agreements now on things that were disagreements in the 95 theses).
I guess you could argue that on major doctrinal points, there is larger disagreement, but I’d argue back that if we start rating doctrinal points by importance, Catholics and Lutherans are even MORE alike, since they share the doctrine that is by far the most important of all.
What separates Lutheran from Catholic is that they have broken apart, and have separate leadership, and seperate orders and practices. Lutherans and Catholics for example disagree on communion, but they have EXACTLY THE SAME SOURCE material for communion, the scriptures. To suggest that having the same source means they aren’t really different misses the point that they are clearly different because they have separated.
LDS and FLDS disavow each other. Taking a practice (which isn’t a doctrinal issue to begin with) that FLDS practices and smearing the LDS with that practice when LDS doesn’t practice it simply because doctrinally they have similar beliefs is disingenous.
The Jewish bible still calls out blood sacrifices. And they may well expect to re-institute blood sacrifices when the time comes. They don’t practice them today. Is that deceptive? And more to the point, does that have anything to do with a completely different topic being discussed, or is every one of these threads simple a pretext for attacks on mormon beliefs, regardless of the context of the article?
I don’t know what you mean when you say “this thread was not my idea”. I mean, most threads contain articles that are not the poster’s words, and that the poster may or may not be in agreement with. But the thread itself is ALWAYS the “idea” of the poster — unless someone is sitting next to you now, holding a gun to your head and forcing you to post threads to FR (if so, sorry we didn’t figure that out earlier, and I guess if he’s reading this I’ve kind of messed up your rescue).
Lastly, while you could argue, I would say inaccurately, that I am an “ally” of the mormons on the point of having their misguided faith attacked on a conservative political forum, you assume facts not in evidence when you suggest that mormons are MY allies. I have no idea if any particular mormom poster would ally with me on any subject, they certainly aren’t coming to MY aid in this thread, and overall I doubt the Mormon church would have anything to do with me, much less be my ally.
What a stretch. How pitiful.
What “stretch?”
My comment was directly tied to this woman’s testimony about polygamy.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has nothing to do with this story. The practice of polygamy was stopped long ago. It had it’s time and place as it has in biblical times. You are very well known as a ring-leader of anti-Mormon propagandists here and your intent is obvious.
Why is this Canadian group practicing polygamy? (Because of Joseph Smith & his alleged personal revelation that he imposed on wife Emma — imposing it upon the rest of the Mormon church — just to get more women into bed!)
Why are they still practicing polygamy? Because they fell away and lost their way. It has nothing to do with the current LDS Church. Your attempt to tie the two together is pitiful. And your mind reading about the reasons behind polygamy being in place in early Church history is nothing but antagonistic propaganda blabber.
Really?
Mary's supposed sinlessness at some pt?
Communicating with Mary?
Communicating with Saints?
Canonising saints?
Many mediators?
The Pope & his authority?
The current Pope's claim that the Protestant church doesn't have the authority to administer the sacraments?
Indulgences?
Is there such a thing as purgatory?
Priests can't marry?
What the priesthood even is?
Does the Bible have authority over church leaders -- or is it the Vatican having authority over the Bible?
Supposed infallibility of the RC church?
Church as a hierarchy? (Ecclesiology?)
Use of icons?
Luther himself?
Beatific Visions? (And which ones RC sanction?)
Relics?
Various orders & how they function?
Penance (ritual punishment for sin)
And on & on?
There are thousands of doctrinal, theological, or practical points of faith that Lutherans share with Catholics.
Agreed...but it's not as high as you think. And as you said, some of the differences are quite major.
LDS and FLDS disavow each other. Taking a practice (which isn’t a doctrinal issue to begin with) that FLDS practices and smearing the LDS with that practice when LDS doesn’t practice it simply because doctrinally they have similar beliefs is disingenous.
So what, Charles re: any disavowing...most of it isn't doctrinal in nature? On paper, Charles the PCA (Presbyterian Church of America) probably agrees with 99% of what the liberal Pres-Church USA says they believe doctrinally...but the PCAers will often disavow the Pres-Church USAs because the latter takes offering plate $ & pays for abortions for its church workers...or they'll make other ridiculous policy decisions on abortion, sex outside of marriage & homosexuality.
But reputation-wise, no matter how much the PCA says "We're not the liberal PC-USA," guess what? Readers will read about the latest liberal tactic of the Pc-USA church and think all Presbyterians are that way.
That's just the way it works, Charles. It works that way with Presbyterians, with Lutherans, with Baptists (American Baptist denomination tends to be more liberal on abortion...tho that varies from church to church), etc.
You some out want to think that you can CONTROL all reputational issues. You can't, Charles. You just can't. Presbyterians can't. Lutherans can't. Baptists can't. Mormons can't. So stop trying.
I don’t know what you mean when you say “this thread was not my idea”. I mean, most threads contain articles that are not the poster’s words, and that the poster may or may not be in agreement with. But the thread itself is ALWAYS the “idea” of the poster
Charles, ALL NEWS is managed news, yes...every news outlet knows that. They choose to cover SOME things & leave out others. What I meant is that I didn't originate the original content...and your words here imply that this thread started with some "editorial" from ME...It didn't. Yes, all post-comments are more "editorial" -- including yours. But that doesn't reduce the article itself upon which these comments are based to "editorial" status.
All you do with your inflammatory insinuations is reinforce your allies, the Mormons, into thinking that they can ignore the news because of the attached editorial comments. Sorry, Charles, the news article which was the seed -- the jumpstart of this thread -- wasn't my idea.
Lastly, while you could argue, I would say inaccurately, that I am an “ally” of the mormons on the point of having their misguided faith attacked on a conservative political forum, you assume facts not in evidence when you suggest that mormons are MY allies.
Charles, #1...this is the religion forum of a broader Web site...not just a "political" forum only. #2...All anybody has to do is pull up all your posts from April and May of 2008 re: the Texas raids on the fLDS and read your constant ridiculous defenses on behalf of the fLDS to see what kind of an ally you've been.
The evidence is already in your posting history, Charles!
It's seared in my memory, seared I say! Along with the other fLDS defender, she who will not be named, she who went into self imposed exile back in Dec.
I wonder if she's "True Blue"?
I don’t want to keep rehashing the arguments — so I;ll just say that in my opinion, your reference to PCA and PC-USA is an excellent example of what I mean. It would be wrong in my opinion for you to hold my church responsible for ordaining women or allowing openly gay pastors, just because the PCA and PC-USA churches have a large amount of doctrine in common.
And if you then found that a PCA pastor came out as gay, and argued that that proved that the PCA was in line with the gay agenda just like PC-USA, I think that would be a bad argument as well.
In my opinion, there are enough clear distinctions to argue about in LDS doctrine that we shouldn’t have to stoop to false guilt-by-association arguments. Although clearly you don’t believe they are false. I think arguing that the typical mormon family, or mormons in general, are culpable for torturing and drowning children is a false argument, and as inappropriate as the argument that Sarah Palin is responsible if a right-winger ever does end up shooting someone.
I could respect the sincerity of your mission, if not your methods, if it wasn’t that you so often lie about my motives and statements.
So, for the edification of the freepers following this thread, why don’t you go to that extensive set of posts on the raids, and link to some comment I made that contained “rediculous defenses on behalf of the FLDS”.
Or, you could apologize for suggesting that I ever defended the FLDS.
My arguments were legal, and were vindicated by the final court ruling regarding the seizure of hundreds of children without rational cause.
You know, Jim Jones was a nut. As were a good number of his followers, and most of his advisors and “church” officials. But a lot of his followers were misquided, falling for his lies and thinking things were OK; families that were fairly normal, did no wrong, treated their kids right.
And one day, Jim Jones was going to be exposed, and he didn’t like that idea, so he told his followers they had to all kill themselves. And a lot of them did so, willingly. And those that didn’t, were forced to drink the kool-aid, their families and kids.
We can fault those parents for stupidity; they put their family, their children, in a place where a crazy man could murder them.
But it would seem wrong to me to argue that because those families were taken in by Jim Jones, they deserved whatever happened to them.
In the FLDS case, the state took virtually every child from virtually every family who were living in the compound, with no evidence that any of those pre-teens had been abused in any way.
Eventually, a judge ruled that the takings were invalid, and returned the children to their families. Some argue that those children deserved to be taken into state custody because their parents were stupid, believing a bad religion.
My argument was that the state does not have the right to judge religion, or to take kids from their parents without evidence.
Nowhere in that argument is a “defense” of FLDS practice, any more than arguing that a KKK member should not be arrested for marching down the street protesting equal rights means one is defending the beliefs of the KKK.
On a religious level, one could argue the efficacy of removing children from parents who were not the right faith, although nothing in the Bible suggests that as Christians part of our mission is to rescue children from unbelieving or mis-believing families. But that argument was never broached — it was purely an argument about government abuse of power.
That even now you don’t understand why, on a POLITICAL CONSERVATIVE FORUM, people would argue against governmental abuse of power even when you like the outcome of that abuse of power, makes me wonder what exactly you are here for?
Do you ever like to just argue conservative politics, or is your primary focus here religious? Not that I mind, so long as those of you who want to have religious arguments could figure out how to do so without falsely accusing other freepers who want to stick to conservative political arguments rather than using the forum to convert the world to our particular religious belief system.
Charles, if you now say this analogy I gave -- comparing PCUSA to PCA -- is comparable to comparing fLDS to LDS -- then what was the big deal with you making a big deal out of me putting a small "f" to describe fLDS?
IOW, what if when I wrote out Presbyterian - USA -- I wrote it as PRESBYTERIAN usa? Do you then interpret that -- that I'm trying to "deceive" people into thinking that PRESBYTERIANusa - ers are PRESBYTERIAN-PCAers because "usa" is lower case & PCA isn't?
They're both Presbyterians, Charles, are they not?
It would be wrong in my opinion for you to hold my church responsible for ordaining women or allowing openly gay pastors, just because the PCA and PC-USA churches have a large amount of doctrine in common.
You're not going to be able to take away the fact that PRESBYTERIAN-usa people are still PRESBYTERIANS, right, Charles?
Well, no matter how much you try to undercut it, the fLDS still have "LDS" in their title...and fundamentalist MORMONS are still MORMONS!
Mainstream LDS Mormons have no exclusive claim to either "LDS" or "Mormon." (It's a shared sect name with distinct branches). And, BTW, the rLDS have a "right" to the LDS moniker, too, if they wanted it...they've shedded that of late -- and have never wanted the "Mormon" label.
This is yet another example of how you the bidding of Mormons as allies: You seem to vie for the Mormon case that fundamentalist MORMONS somehow don't also have a right to the name "MORMON."
Besides you, who else has been making this point for the Mormon church? (a) Their attorney; (b) Their "prophet," Gordon Hinckley:
(a) After the April 2008 raid on members of the polygamist Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Texas, the LDS Church issued a strongly worded "correction" to the scores of journalists who seemed to confuse the two faiths:
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has gone to significant lengths to protect its rights in the name of the church and related matters"...As reflected in the AP Style Guide, we ask that you and your organization refrain from referring to members of that polygamous sect as “fundamentalist Mormons” or “fundamentalist” members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Source: Lds Media letter
(b)
Hinckley quote: Sept. 8, 1998 airing of Larry King Live show:
KING: But when the word [polygamy] is mentioned, when you hear the word, you think Mormon, right?
HINCKLEY: You do it mistakenly. They have no connection to us whatsoever. They don't belong to the church. There are actually no Mormon fundamentalists.
Thus, Charles, you actually wind up siding with the Mormon attorney & its "prophet" in jumping on people who describe this group as what they are -- fundamentalist MORMON...and likewise, you wind up "joining" in with those like Paragon Defender. Paragon Defender in 2010 added this thread - Myths and Reality - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ... the clip he linked to has Hinckley saying that the term “Mormon” should NEVER be applied to these other religions and there is no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist.”
Are you going to be consistent Charles? Doesn't the PRESBYTERIAN church-usa have a right to PRESBYTERIANISM?
Doesn't the fLDS have a right to MORMONISM?
If we were discussing women pastors, and you posted something about Women pasters, and labeled it (PCusA Caucus), I might well get upset, because it would be clear your intent was to pretend we were talking about PCA, and for purposes of the discussion, PCA and PC-USA would be two separate entities. No one would claim that PCA had to answer for the PC-USA positions on that issue.
The key issue is that, as you well know, typing "fLDS" in italics, as you like to do, with the "f" unbolded and the "LDS" bolded, is your attempt to maximize confusion because it looks like LDS. You have gone out of your way to make the "fLDS" look like "LDS" to the casual observer, so that you can deceive people into thinking your claims are against the LDS organization.
It is deceitful, and I don't think your faith teaches that it is OK to be deceitful, even in the pursuit of a nobel cause.
Given the specific work it takes to list FLDS in the way you do (fLDS -- yes I can do it as well), it is clear you go out of your way to practice this deceit. You might as well talk about PC-USA byh typing PC-A, and hten pretending you were just trying to be save space by leaving off the "US".
I don't know why you included all the religous stuff about how the two have common beliefs -- my argument isn't about the belief system of either one, it's about your deceptive and misleading manner of designating "FLDS" so as to mislead freepers into thinking an article is discussing the LDS organization rather than the separate FLDS organization.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
(reposted to remove attribution of motives — I’ve asked for post 51 to be deleted).
And as a point of clarification — I have never argued for or against any group using the term “mormon”, in fundamentalist form or otherwise. And I’ve never argued against using the letters “LDS” in the abbreviation for the fundamentalist group.
You should never have suggested that I did — I’ll be happy to defend what I say, but I shouldn’t have to defend myself against arguments I never made.
My argument isn’t about the fight between LDS and FLDS over who owns what rights to whose names. My argument is that, by formatting FLDS to be italicised, with a lower-case unbolded f and a capitalized bolded LDS, you are misleading other freepers into thinking we are talking about the LDS organization, rather than the FLDS organization.
It’s the same letters. It’s not an argument against the abbreviation, it’s about hiding the ‘f’ which creates a false impression.
I apologize for forgetting where I was, and violating the rules of the religion forum.
Although I will add that it seems odd to have such a rule in a thread that is essentially a blood libel against the LDS freepers, implying they support the drowning and torture of babies.
Still, nobody actually comes right out and accuses any freeper of such an act, so I guess it’s all good. I just think it is a sad way to use this site, and a bad way to treat fellow conservative freepers who have the misfortune of believing the wrong things.
My outrage for the implied personal attack on my fellow freepers was no excuse for not following the rules of the religion forum.
And not meaning to belabor the point, but wouldn’t accusing people of having the motive of defending murderers also be “attributing personal motives” which “makes it personal”?
I know this is a fine line, but it is hard to discuss the issues if when you do, people accuse you of being mormon sympathisers or having the motive of defending murderers.
This claim was made against other freepers in this thread, not against me. I was accused of defending child abusers, but not the murderers.
Which post numbers are involved?
It’s no longer Westboro Baptist, just Westboro Church. They no longer consider themselves Christians.
You are wasting your time feeding the anti-Mormon trolls...they can say what they please, no matter how contemptible and get away with it...put them on ignore like the rest of us do...magritte
Magritte I thought I've seen you reference a penchant for wannabe ties to Noachide Judaism. Having said that, why in all the Mormon threads I've seen you on -- which are dozens if not triple figures -- have you seemed to give the Mormons a free pass on this little "scripture" verse in Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon...found in the Book of Jacob, 4:14:
"But behod, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs falls; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble."
Tell us, Magritte...you do agree with this Joseph Smith assessment about the Jews? Smith said here that Jews -- blanket-like across the board -- "could not understand...cannot understand" because they were inherently "blind" and therefore were destined to "falls" [sic] -- oh, and this was also apparently the Jews' inherent "desire," per Smith.
If you take issue with this, Magritte, why no provocation on your part toward Joseph Smith & his contemporary disciples?
You are so right the religion guidlines no longer apply to the LDS you can call them demon whatever and it is not making it personal!
even it the post has nothing to do with LDS but FLDS you can drag the LDS into the conversation acroding to FR.
makes one think of this ditty...
First they came for... and I said nothing, and then they came for ... and I said nothing,...and then they came for me and there was no one left!
Thank you all for being so brave!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2657760/replies?c=148
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2657760/replies?c=166
Or play with letters always demeaning the LDS with small letter unless it is the FLDS than post as fLDS.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2659560/posts
You are so right the religion guidlines no longer apply to the LDS you can call them demon whatever and it is not making it personal!
even it the post has nothing to do with LDS but FLDS you can drag the LDS into the conversation acroding to FR.
makes one think of this ditty...
First they came for... and I said nothing, and then they came for ... and I said nothing,...and then they came for me and there was no one left!
Thank you all for being so brave!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2657760/replies?c=148
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2657760/replies?c=166
Or play with letters always demeaning the LDS with small letter unless it is the FLDS than post as fLDS.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2659560/posts
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.