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.”

[DelphiUser]

(Come back later when she's NOT looking over your should as you type... ;^)

She is in bed now, I have always thought that I married up and tell people that my wife has excellent taste in everything but men. I truly desire no one but her, she is my soul mate and I am the luckiest man in the world, I have been for fifteen years and five kids now.

I truly wish that every one could be as happily married as I am, single people who have never been married mercifully don't know what they are missing.

[ansel12]

>>>“This study examined marriage patterns between ethnic groups in six counties in Texas in 1850, 1860, 1880, 1900, and 1910. Data were obtained from the census for 3 counties near the border and 3 counties in mostly livestock-raising areas. Average marriage ages in Texas were higher for men than for women and declined over time from over 26 years to 25.2 years from 1850 to 1910. Women’s average marriage age increased from over 20 years in 1850 to 22 years in 1910.”<<< "Six whole counties? in Texas? That's no more statistically accurate for Illinois than my gr, gr grandma's Journal, at least she lived in Illinois LOL!. Whatever, it was a different time and different customs, ignore that at the peril of looking silly."" ============================================================ It makes you look silly to just skip over those facts to cling to your personal opinion, especially when my very next post was this chart from a different source.

[P-Marlowe]

wife here is ishshash in the Hebrew, a woman, adulteress, wife (often unexpressed in English)

Is not the same word used to describe Sarai in the same verse? Are they not both translated "Wife" in nearly every legitimate translation?

Gen 16:3

(ASV) And Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Abram her husband to be his wife.

(CEV) and Sarai gave him Hagar to be his wife. This happened after Abram had lived in the land of Canaan for ten years.

(Darby) And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar, the Egyptian, her maidservant, at the end of ten years that Abram had dwelt in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram, as his wife.

(ESV) So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife.

(GB) Then Sarai Abrams wife tooke Hagar her maide the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelled ten yeere in the land of Canaan, and gaue her to her husband Abram for his wife.

(JPS) And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Abram her husband to be his wife.

(KJV) And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

(KJV+) And Sarai⁸²⁹⁷ Abram's⁸⁷ wife⁸⁰² took^{3947 (853)} Hagar¹⁹⁰⁴ her maid⁸¹⁹⁸ the Egyptian,⁴⁷¹³ after^{4480, 7093} Abram⁸⁷ had dwelt³⁴²⁷ ten⁶²³⁵ years⁸¹⁴¹ in the land⁷⁷⁶ of Canaan,³⁶⁶⁷ and gave⁵⁴¹⁴ her to her husband³⁷⁶ Abram⁸⁷ to be his wife.⁸⁰²

(LITV) And Sarai, Abram's wife, took her slave-girl, Hagar, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan.

(MKJV) And Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar her slave woman, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife (after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan).

(MSG) So Sarai, Abram's wife, took her Egyptian maid Hagar and gave her to her husband Abram as a wife. Abram had been living ten years in Canaan when this took place.

(RSV) So, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, Sar'ai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife.

(WEB) Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Abram her husband to be his wife.

(Webster) And Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

(YLT) And Sarai, Abram's wife, taketh Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, at the end of the tenth year of Abram's dwelling in the land of Canaan, and giveth her to Abram her husband, to him for a wife,

[Colofornian]

Genesis 16:3 wife here is ishshash in the Hebrew, a woman, adulteress, wife (often unexpressed in English)[TN]

The Hebrew word you mention, ishshash is actually rendered by those who study Scripture as ishshah (You have an extra "s" not needed) or issah -- which is the same word & the spelling I've been using. (The reason why ishshah is often used because that's how it sounds.)

And thank you for reminding us of the Gal. 4 passage describing Hagar as a bondwoman. (I suppose I could add Paul to my Q&A witnesses as a sixth person who describes her NOT as Abraham's extra wife, but only as a bondwoman!)

[P-Marlowe]

Give me a break, P-M! (You're starting to sound like a Mormon who says the word "trinity" isn't in the text of the Bible).

Is it the same word, or isn't it?

So my question back to you, P, is doesn't Cherry raise a legit question here with her comment? If a slaveowner orders a slave to have sex with her husband, isn't it possible that this is "rape" and that a slaveowner has overstepped her stewardship of that slave?

The morality of it was dealt with in the Bible. It was wrong. Nevertheless, what Sarai did was to give her slave to Abram as a WIFE. Abram could have refused and should have refused. It is fairly clear that Hagar could have refused as well, since she apparently had the power to leave, which she later did after being mistreated by a jealous Sarai.

Regardless of the morality of the situation, the fact remains that the scripture quite plainly states that Sarai gave Hagar to Abram as a wife.

And is this same "abuse" by a person of authority the exact issue that jumpstarted this thread?

I would assume that it was not a nice thing to do. But I also have to note that during Abraham's time, it certainly wasn't illegal. I tend to doubt that Hagar was a 13 year old girl since she had been with Sarai for at least 10 years. For all we know she was the same age as Sarai.

I'm not trying in any way to justify the LDS practice of polygamy. I'm merely pointing out that the prohibition on the practice is modern and it was not prohibited in the Old Testament and (to get back to the original argument) there are polygamists in Jesus' Family Tree. What that means may be up to debate, but the fact of that family history is not deniable.

[Tennessee Nana]

The Hebrew word you mention, ishshash is actually rendered by those who study Scripture as ishshah (You have an extra “s” not needed) or issah — which is the same word & the spelling I’ve been using. (The reason why ishshah is often used because that’s how it sounds.
_________________________________________

Sorry I did put an extra s in the word

It is ishshah...

I was pointing out that the Hebrew words were different in the origional text...

[Colofornian]

Is not the same word used to describe Sarai in the same verse? Are they not both translated "Wife" in nearly every legitimate translation?

Yes, but as I've already said, Moses was the author of Genesis 16 just like he was the author of Gen.7. And the same word Moses used in Gen. 16 is also translated as "mate" in Gen. 7:2. [And note, it's also translated as "woman"--in reference to a "concubine"--in Judges 19:26]

Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate (Gen. 7:2)

Moses could have been saying in Gen. 16:3: Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his mate. (And I don't think those "mates" in Gen. 7 were married--though definitely the purpose of a male & female on board the ark was NONE OTHER than procreation! So it would definitely be not just "mate" but implied (sexual) mate).

"...the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman [Hebrew=issah or ishshah] went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down... (Judges 19:25-26)

Now just because the same word is used here as for "bride" in a Genesis passage & another in Deuteronomy passage, or for Sarah as "wife," doesn't convert this woman into anything other than a concubine in a master-subject relationship.

[Colofornian]

The morality of it was dealt with in the Bible. It was wrong. Nevertheless, what Sarai did was to give her slave to Abram as a WIFE.

Well, if Sarah was in any way godly, what would the Bible say? That she gave her slave as a whore? (No, because the purpose wasn't sexual pleasure). That she gave her slave as a surrogate? (Oh, sure, I'm sure the Hebrews had a word for "surrogate" back then).

As my last post to you shows, the fact that Moses used the same word 9 chapters earlier to mean (sexual) "mate"--I think that's a possible translation...She gave her to be his (sexual) mate for the purpose of long-term pro-creation--exactly like the reason a female animal "mate" was secured onboard the ark in Gen. 7:2 was for purposes of long-term pro-creation. There's really no difference according to the promises of the rainbow covenant (for Noah's family & the animals in Gen. 7) or the promises of the Abrahamic covenant in Gen. 12 & what follows...both involved the long-term propagation of the species covenanted with God.

Abram could have refused and should have refused. (No disagreement there)

It is fairly clear that Hagar could have refused as well, since she apparently had the power to leave, which she later did after being mistreated by a jealous Sarai.

Um. This "power to leave"--is that the same kind of "power to leave" a runaway slave had as he used the underground railroad passage North?

[DelphiUser]

U Asked: 1. If there is no Trinity, it that follows that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit MIGHT NOT always be of One Mind; should a division arise, Who would you believe? (And to forestall any attempts to turn this question around, this question CANNOT be asked of non-Mormons as our belief in the Trinity renders it a moot point.)

This is no more a possibility for us than it is for you, the son is a prefect model of subjugation to the will of his father. John 5: 19, 30 If this is not so, then we are all already in trouble for the the Bible has lied.

Your question reminds me of the perennial favorite as answered by Isaac Asimov: Q "What would happen if an immovable object were confronted with an unstoppable force?" Asimov "A universe in which there exists such a thing as an irresistible force is, by definition, a universe which cannot also contain an immovable object. And a universe which contains an immovable object cannot, by definition, also contain an irresistible force. So the question is essentially meaningless: either the force is irresistible or the object is immovable, but not both."

You have succeeded in asking a meaningless question, Next?

U Asked: 2. Why did the religion that Mormons claim the Israelites brought to America fail? What happened in the 5th Century A.D. that removed any evidence that it EVER existed?

First, not all evidence has been removed, you may want to read up on archeology which supports the book of Mormon (there is a surprisingly large amount of it, if you want some links, just ask.) Second the religion fell into apostasy because of pride, a lack of faith, and because of the temptings of Satan. Next?

U Asked: 3. What happened to the gold plates and decoding devices? How were they lost? Why did Smith place no importance on protecting them?

This is actually 3 questions, I will answer A, B and C. A. The Gold plates were taken back by the angel of God who lent them to Joseph for translation, they were not "lost" God knows exactly where they are and when we are ready the rest of the plates will be translated (did you know that Joseph was only allowed to translate a portion?)

B. the Urim and Thummim are still used by the prophet of the church today. the plates were taken back by the angel entrusted with their keeping by God.
C. Joseph placed the highest priority on protecting them possible as extraordinary means were used to try to get them from him, however, he was true and faithful and returned them to the angel when requested that he do so.

U Asked: 4. And finally (and I admit I have not asked this before), why are there "secret" Temple ceremonies? Why won't you say what happens there? NO other religion that considers itself to be in the Judeo-Christian tradition hides fundamental tenets of their faith until after a person becomes a member. (And don't get the bright idea to talk about the Jewish High Priest crawling on his belly into the Holy of Holies, there was a prohibition against all Jews but him doing this AND what was done was not a secret.)

Again, this is not a single question, but several questions in one.
A. The ceremonies are not "Secret" they are sacred, there is vast a difference, nonmember are permitted to know what the ceremonies are for, not how they are performed. B. OK, we perform Baptisms for the dead by proxy, we perform confirmations and the ordination of priesthood by proxy, we perform a ceremony called the endowment by proxy, we seal couples and parents to children for all time and all eternity by proxy. we also perform all these ordinances on the living.

If you wonder about proxy work, all Christians by definition accept the principle of proxy work for the atonement was a work performed for us by proxy. Mormons believe that fulfilling the command to perform proxy work for our ancestors brings us closer to Jesus. C. There were indeed "sacred" ceremonies that were performed inside the temple, They were not recorded in the Bible, as ours are not recorded in the D&C, however, the masons for one trace their ceremonies back to secret observation of these ceremonies from the walls while they were working on the temple in Jerusalem. There are other records from the secular world which reference the Jews having sacred ceremonies which are not in the Bible. The loss of these ceremonies was part of the apostasy Mormonism is restoring that knowledge.

U Said Please, if you wish to partake in critical thinking as you claim, answer these questions

Now I have a few questions for you, if you don't mind.

With this document from the Catholic Encyclopedia on-line entered into evidence, The First Council of Nicaea

1. Why did Constantine (a pagan) call the council to decide God's definition?
2. Why was this pagan allowed to set the agenda for God's church?
3. what happened to the dissenters
4. Since revelations was written in AD 90, and we are told there can be no more revelation (Revelations 22:18-19), and the Council happened in 325 AD, how is this accepted as revelation, and further revelation rejected?
5. If this is to become the central doctrine of the church which all Christians must accept, were those who believed before 325 AD no such Dogma (because it didn't exist) not Christian, including the disciples?

Oh, I've Got more and none of mine are impossible to answer questions, I am truly interested in hearing your reasoning...

[McCoMo]

Hello all. Had a few minutes available with nothing much to do, so I thought I would drop in and see what was happening. Wow, 1800+ posts. I see the subject has gotten heavily into a debate about the practice of polygamy, and thought I would toss a few observations in, just for the heck of it.

First, I am a little confused. I was under the impression that most of the mormon members here were LDS, and not FLDS, so I would appreciate a little clarification on that if any of them do not mind. If in fact they are LDS, then I find it peculiar that they are so readily supporting the doctrine of polygamy, which as far as I know, the LDS has repudiated. Of course, I could be wrong, perhaps they did not repudiate it, in which case they have sold out in their convictions, and are living in a manner inconsistent with the teachings of their faith. This does not speak well for those who style themselves as “Saints”.

In any event, I am going to cast my lot in with those who reject notion that polygamy has Biblical authority.

I see it stated that Abraham took more than one wife, but when we read the scriptures, it never mentions anything about Hagar being wed to Abraham... and as we all know, simply having intercourse does not make one automatically wedded, for if it did, the term “adultery” would be meaningless. Further, the Bible has a few things to say about a man and his wife.

In Genesis 2:18, God made one companion for Adam; he did not make several.

In Genesis 2:24 it reads “This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

I find no allowance for polygamy in that.

I Corinthians 7:2 “every man have his own wife.” Note again the singular “wife”, not plural “wives”.

1 Timothy 3:2, 12 “Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.” (NIV)

So much for what the Bible says about more than one wife. So what does the Book of Mormon have to say?

Jacob 2:27 “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none.”

And Jacob 2:24 says, “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”

I believe that is known as being “hoist by their own petard”. Apparently Mormon doctrine is not even consistent with it’s own “scripture”.

In 1866, the Second President of the Mormons, Brigham Young, supported polygamy and made an interesting comment about it...

“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of Gods, are those who enter into polygamy.” (Journal of Discourses 11:269).

So, Brigham Young thought men could become Gods. If that is not antithetical to the teachings of the Bible, then nothing is.

[SkyPilot]

You obviously are an untrustworthy scumbag. There will never be any further private conversations between us.

This was a "private conversation between us? Old Mountain Man?

What’s the matter? Not enough guts to respond to my true comment? As I suspected, another lying mainstreamer? A drunk?

You have interesting "private conversations" like this in your household?

That was an ugly taunt and insult. Heck, I didn't even see your post to me, and it was only on the board for a few minutes before you mailed me with your viscous assault accusing me of being a "liar" and a "drunk."

You really know how to have "private conversations."

And no, Leni, I don't normally post mails. But this what OMMs thuggery that he tried to hide in the shadows - which is par for the course for him.

Garbage like that needs to be shown the light of day. It has no place here on Free Republic.

Quite frankly, the LDS crowd is losing this debate and doesn't like it - so they lash out in insults and threats.

Then, we have restornu who calls everyone names that she herself is living up to with every post - and then when people break through her lack of logic she accuses them of not acting in a Christian manner.

I have learned more about the tactics of cult members who practice intimidation, ridicule, and threats. I now am more aware of how people who start to question their status in a cult are bullied into staying. Thanks for the education.

[Elsie]

Whom

[Elsie]

I have answered EVERY one of Resty’s questions, she has answered NONE of mine.

Welcome to the club!!

---

---

[Elsie]

 

They (the Mormons Freepers) still ask me to resign all the time, like it is any of their business.

 

It IS our BUSINESS!!

 

If we can get you OUT of our midst; THEN you will be an "EX" - never to be taken seriously, thus, turned into a #3

 

---

  

                       Standard LDS responses to data put to them:

 

Shorthand	Reference:
1. How you interpret it is wrong...	(Need a source)
2. You are too ignorant to really understand it because you are not a member....	(Need a source)
3. You're not qualified to judge because you're no LONGER a member...	(Need a source)
4. You are just a bigot for bringing the whole ugly truth to light ...	(Need a source)
5. So’s yer Mama!	(Need a source)
6. Laugh it all off and post some silly image.	(Need a source)
7. Jump down the rabbit hole; Alice!	http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1982682/posts?page=683#683
8. Bait & Switch	(Need a source)
9. The OTHER 'half' of the truth is what we are avoiding.	(Need a source)
10. "I Know It When I See It"	(Need a source)
11. Hand waving...	(Need a source)
12. YOU play defense for a while.	http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1982682/posts?page=944#944
13. HEE Hee hee... let's get the Calvinists and the Armenians fighting!	http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1994515/posts?page=15#15
14. GREAT FUN! Let's get the Catholics and the Protestants fighting!	(Need a source)
15. Huh? Did you say something?	(Need a source)
16. If I repeat this enough times some folks will be fooled into thinking it's true.	(Need a source)
17. Playing dumb.	(Need a source)
18. Refusing to answer because your ATTITUDE offends them.	(Need a source)
19. (Let's see if they'll fall for the 'Defend a freak' ploy.)	(Need a source)
20. And the MOST used...  IGNORE what they posted and answer the question that SHOULD have been asked.	http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=UMJvqBq_Qa8

 

 

--MormonDude(At your service!)

[Elsie]

 

I commend you on your honest posts, it is certainly refreshing to see a Mormon acknowledge that ANY time sinful men are involved, there will be some sinful events.

 

 Remember fellow Christians: 

the Mormon's criticize US because they've been taught that they CAN'T criticize ANY of their leaders; so they HAVE to vent somehow!

 

 

 

Don't criticize?

 

Dallin H. Oaks, Mormon Apostle

 

 

 

Oh, they can say that their leaders were NOT speaking for GOD when they said ___________ but that's NOT the same as criticizing!

I commend you on your honest posts, it is certainly refreshing to see a Mormon acknowledge that ANY time sinful men are involved, there will be some sinful events.

[Elsie]

I know this is The Church of Jesus Christ of The Latter Day Saints on earth today.

I know that you have been deceived.

[Elsie]

Don't try to crawl into Degaston's courage, honesty, and clarity restornu.

Oh no!

Let her have some CLARITY!!

PLEASE!!

[Elsie]

How about trying to convert...

Those too, but souls are #1.

[Elsie]

I predict:

You will be called out for posting a PRIVATE post!

[Elsie]

You’re a gem, Elsie.

Ah.... shucks!