BREAKING NEWS UPDATE: Authorities enter Eldorado-area temple (Fundamentalist LDS cult)

To: Colofornian; P-Marlowe; restornu; SkyPilot; MHGinTN; metmom

I Said: How about a simple yes or no?

U Said: Yes

so Abraham was polygamous, God specifically approved of him and blessed him for his righteousness while he was polygamous, thus polygamy is not a sin or God could not have done that. God does not change, therefore, since it was OK with God then, it's OK with God now.

You go on in your post talking about the whys and wherefores and it's really not germane to my point, there are no exceptions to sin, you do what God says when God says it or you are in opposition to his will it's simple.

I am now going to give you guys a whole bunch more ammo, because I am being 100% honest in my thoughts and beliefs. I'll start with some definitions:

Kiddery - The marrying of children either to each other, or to an adult - is a sin.
Adultery - Sex between people not legally and lawfully married (most restrictive interpretation I can manage both law of the land and law of God, if you are recognized by one and not the other, tough, no sex.) Unmarried children who practice this before marriage hurt themselves and their future spouses, Married people hurt their families wife, Children, etc and there will be children if they are keeping God's commands unless there is a medical problem (then they should consider adoption...).
Polygamy - The legal and lawful (both by God's law and Secular Law) union of one man and multiple women
Divorce - The cessation of a marital relationship, often with children in the middle being hurt the most. Serial Polygamy - The practice of Divorce and remarriage to other people than the original spouse. I think (yeah you guys are gonna have fun with this :^) that God has absolutely no tolerance for kiddery, Adultery, or Divorce. All the above injure innocent children who have no say in the matter, however, Marriage is recommended of God, if a man can handle more than one wife (emotionally and financially my hat's off to him) God would let him marry a second wife. If a man is so estranged from his wife that he wants a divorce, God would prefer that he stay married, continue to support and be involved in the Children's lives and work toward a second wife for his emotional and physical needs. God would rather have the family stay intact for the children, God would protect the innocent.

Today we have divorce as a first and only remedy for a couple who have separated themselves from each other, the children become pawns in the battle for superiority over the other spouse, and after it's over, the children often become bastards after the fact being disowned by their fathers or mothers, with limited, strained and sometimes even dangerous arrangements over visitation. Can anyone actually believe that this is how God intended for marriage to be?

I can't.

The males (they are not men) who treated their wives and children in this manner (Physical, mental and sexual abuse) are animals, and deserve to be treated to the harshest penalties the law allows, Males who treat their one wife the same way should be treated the same way by the law. Males who treat children in this way should be treated harsher than allowed by law. Their mistreatment of their fellow beings will not be ignored by God, but it has nothing to do with polygamy, they just happened to take advantage of the secretive nature of the polygamous group to cover their sins, there are people equally deserving of our scorn and wrath who are not polygamists, let's not blame this on polygamy, it's the males who make me ashamed to call them men who are to blame, let us all stand up and be men let us live in truth, honesty and righteousness with each other, let us keep the laws of the land and of God and be his servants. The servants of God should never be found accepting the wages of sin. Be men.

2,221 posted on 04/10/2008 2:46:40 PM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")

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.

I am just chewing through all the posts to me on he "my comments page" right now, I haven't had the time to poke through thread one by one, so I missed your "Chart", gosh, I'm sorry I didn't respond to the Post that was not to me, um yeah!

2,222 posted on 04/10/2008 2:50:42 PM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")

“I haven’t had the time to poke through thread one by one, so I missed your “Chart”, gosh, I’m sorry I didn’t respond to the Post that was not to me, um yeah!”

Theatrical, but the chart in post 1687 was a reinforcement of the figures I gave in post 1686 that you responded to, it was not very easy to miss.

2,223 posted on 04/10/2008 3:05:39 PM PDT by ansel12 (This cult stuff is grossing me out.)

To: DelphiUser; Elsie

Polygamy - The legal and lawful (both by God's law and Secular Law) union of one man and multiple women

Then why do the LDS leaders and LDS Scripture that Elsie posted say differently?

2,224 posted on 04/10/2008 3:14:53 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)

Polygamy - The legal and lawful (both by God's law and Secular Law) union of one man and multiple women

Secular law says polygamy is lawful? Where?

2,225 posted on 04/10/2008 3:16:28 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)

U Said: Under YOUR system, Christ COULD change His mind and the verses are silent on the will of the Holy Spirit.

Have you heard of Nineveh, how about Jonah, God changed his mind, right here. U Said: So, you are saying that Christ came to America and failed?

The apostasy foretold in the Bible was world wide, so yes, just like he "Failed" in Jerusalem. however, God knowing all and existing outside of time just had all this as part of his plan.

I Said: the Urim and Thummim are still used by the prophet of the church today.

U Said: What are they "used" for?

The same things they were used for by Aaron and the priest in olden days, the receiving of revelation used to guide the church.

I Said: Why did Constantine (a pagan) call the council to decide God's definition?

U Said: As emperor he convened it, he did not influence the council.

I Said: Why was this pagan allowed to set the agenda for God's church?

U Said: He didn't set any agenda.

That's not what the records of the catholic church sayhere. I did give the link as part of the question, I want to know what you think about the records disagreeing with the "party line"

U Said: There is a vast difference between definition and revelation.

Yes there is, if you can redefine what the words of a given relation mean, then you have changed God's words into man's words. The first is of immeasurable value, the second is worthless.

U Said: The Church needed to devine what it had always believed, some who claimed to be teaching the Gospel were incorrect.

From my perspective, you have to understand, the wrong side won, the side spear headed by an emperor who didn't care if the doctrine was true, he just cared if he could use it to unify his empire, even if that meant bending this new religion a bit to make it fit. The document of the even as the catholic church records it makes this clear, go and read it, it's not that long.

Over all, I'd give your answers a D- you tried but you did not actually read the article the questions were based on... Want a mulligan?

2,226 posted on 04/10/2008 3:20:08 PM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")

I see you’ve managed to find time to post 6 - yes SIX - pages of well thought out reasonings.

But I rarely even bother to respond to your one liners, I wonder why...

2,227 posted on 04/10/2008 3:23:39 PM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")

To: colorcountry

Who cares what you said. Six PAGES worth of I said, U said and all of it a bunch of worthless, cultminded hubris.

If you don't care then don't post to me and don't respond to me...

2,228 posted on 04/10/2008 3:25:09 PM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")

To: metmom; CindyDawg

Very good (and disturbing) video with testimonies of escaped women.

Click on the one that says "Polygamy in the US."

The teenage boys are abandoned and thrown out because they compete with 50+ year old men for the young girls.

Children are raped by their fathers, and one women talks about laying awake at night in terror, waiting to hear the footsteps coming down the hall meaning her daddy was going to rape her.

2,229 posted on 04/10/2008 3:29:21 PM PDT by SkyPilot ("I wasn't in church during the time when the statements were made.")

I can’t stand this any more. No wonder the picture on the news shows the little girl RUNNING to the bus with a big smile on her face.

2,230 posted on 04/10/2008 3:34:12 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)

To: colorcountry; greyfoxx39; Elsie; MHGinTN

Frustrating, isn't it? Sort of like debating a three year old.

I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said I Said: U Said

And still not one real question is answered with accuracy because it won't look good for his side, and about 786 non sequiturs are thrown into the proverbial mix.

2,231 posted on 04/10/2008 3:34:48 PM PDT by SkyPilot ("I wasn't in church during the time when the statements were made.")

He does respect the title wife DU - that is why he put it "wife" in quotes because these are not "wives" and they are not respected by 50+ year old men who physically abused them and sexually raped them. A wife is a wife. What we are talking about here is teen age sex slaves being called "wives" by evil people.

I am not trying to defend their treatment of children, nor their illegal behavior. Polygamy is moral because it's biblical, I would not have started posting here if people were not bashing my church and trying to make us look like we were the ones with a compound in Texas. Polygamy is not the problem, how or what they dove to the store, was not the problem the problem was the illegal nature of the marriages for both age and number (illegal is not immoral and Vice Versa), the way these children were being treated is contemptible, and I am not defending them at at all I hope the get everything they deserve, sadly I fear they will not. I am standing up for one and only one point in this story, Polygamy is biblical and moral according to the bible. I stand up for this because it's true. If you want to start posting to me about how how these Guys were marrying under aged girls or holding their heads under water to get them to behave, or how polygamy is illegal in the US of A we can have a nice boring mutual admiration association meeting, but polygamy is biblical and as the Bible is the standard of Christian morality, it's moral. It is not legal, nor is the way they practiced it moral, but that is an immorality all on it's own lumping stuff together is just inaccurate.

You know that too. Your attempt to be outraged and try to seize some sort of sanctimonious high ground on this is laughable.

I cold care less about sanctimony, and as for High Ground, I am seeking truth.

So, I ask you is polygamy (not what these males were doing, but polygamy) in the bible?

If it is is it accepted by God, or reviled by him.

If it is reviled by him, please post the scripture because I missed it.

If it is accepted by God then it is not the problem here morally; age of consent, lawful behavior, torture now those are issues here.

Don't paint me to be a the villain, that just won't stick because it's not true.

2,232 posted on 04/10/2008 3:41:14 PM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")

Have you looked at your “My comments page?” surrounding posts not posted to you are impossible to see.

2,233 posted on 04/10/2008 3:42:22 PM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")

Do you believe like JS did??

2,234 posted on 04/10/2008 3:44:45 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)

To: DelphiUser; colorcountry; greyfoxx39; Elsie; MHGinTN

Polygamy is moral because it's biblical

As Ronald Reagan said: "There you go again!"

Here is the real reason you keep repeating that lie:

If polygamy is immoral, then Joseph Smith was immoral. If he was immoral and never repented of his sin (and actually magnified it with his 27 "wives"), then his halo as a "prophet" is ripped to shreds.

Then, your whole world collapses.

There. That didn't even take 12 pages of U Said: I Said.

2,235 posted on 04/10/2008 3:46:47 PM PDT by SkyPilot ("I wasn't in church during the time when the statements were made.")

See post #1613 and get a clue.

2,236 posted on 04/10/2008 3:48:10 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)

The males (they are not men) who treated their wives and children in this manner (Physical, mental and sexual abuse) are animals, and deserve to be treated to the harshest penalties the law allows,

Why???

Maybe they heard from GOD.

Maybe GOD told Gordon B. Hinckley the same stuff, but HE was too afraid of what the Gov't would do.

2,237 posted on 04/10/2008 3:49:09 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)

To: JRochelle; colorcountry; Utah Binger; P-Marlowe; Godzilla; SkyPilot; ansel12; PennsylvaniaMom; ...

They need to throw that tar baby out.

Tar baby being section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants on polygamy. Perhaps, this would be a politically correct time for the new prophet to start his reign off by having a new revelation.

2,238 posted on 04/10/2008 3:49:26 PM PDT by greyfoxx39 (New apologist mantra..and defense.."love the POLYGAMY sin" but hate the sinner.")

Enosh was trying out his tagline.

2,239 posted on 04/10/2008 3:50:02 PM PDT by greyfoxx39 (New apologist mantra..and defense.."love the POLYGAMY sin" but hate the sinner.")

Then why do the LDS leaders and LDS Scripture that Elsie posted say differently?

Polygamy is something that is practiced at some times and not at others, n general the large portion of the people are never asked to practice it, but it's biblical, and can be done without salaciousness. The book of Mormon speaks out against polygamy when it was used as a way to punish wives and was being practiced very wickedly. God commanded Joseph to institute it for the protection of his kingdom, then once it was illegal and had been tried in the highest court, the church stopped the practice to be in compliance with the laws of the land, which is part of the articles of faith.

You might just as easily ask how the Eternal law of moses was fulfilled by Jesus, if it was not then all "Christians" today would have to live the law of Moses (BY BY ham, and cheeseburgers, etc...)

2,240 posted on 04/10/2008 3:50:04 PM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794