Posted on 04/06/2008 5:27:22 AM PDT by 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.”
The TEXT of...
KJV 1 Timothy 3
1. This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3. Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4. One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5. (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
I think you missed THIS:
KJV 1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
WHY have you steadfastly REFUSED to answer the UNTRUTH about PRESBYTERIANISM?
2 Nephi 3:12 Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins write; and the fruit of thy loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins of Judah, shall grow together,
2 Nephi 3:18 And the Lord said unto me also: I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman. And I, behold, I will give unto him that he shall write the writing of the fruit of thy loins, unto the fruit of thy loins; and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare it.
Joseph Smith Translation Gen. 50: 27 Thus saith the Lord God of my fathers unto me, A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren.
Joseph Smith Translation Gen. 50: 31 Wherefore the fruit of thy loins shall write, and the fruit of thy loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins of Judah, shall grow together
But...
But ANGEL did NOT multiply himself, because ANGEL was NOT commanded.
With no 'command' to multiply (they were CREATED) ANGEL had no ahem, 'equipment' with which TO multiply; therefore, ANGEL could NOT have 'mated' with ADAM.
Why Not?
You do it all the time!
I just have to assume, that since you have NOT 'pontificated' about the UNTRUTH of PRESBYTERIANISM, you have NO knowledge of any.
|
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! 18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. 19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” 20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” |
THE MEANING OF “THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE” IN 1 TIMOTHY 3:2 as spun by the Mormon brain.
____________________________________________
Of Course
One wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife, and one wife.....
And now you just spam with music because you have nothing to say.
So God does the 'minimum' for us, is that what Mormons believe? Interesting. I would remind you that when God was done creating He called it 'good' not 'minimum'.
That's right, you marry them one at a time
A man can't become one with two, or three or four or five. . .he can become one with one. A man becomes 'one flesh' with one woman, then goes off and tries to become 'one flesh' with another, he either is breaking the 'one flesh' tie with the first, or he isn't becoming one with the next. So, if there were two wives, which wife is getting the shaft in polygamy? What happens when a third or fourth is added?
Ah, the mistranslation of Greek by the early catholic church who decided to interpret for monogamy...
Sorry, that argument doesn't hold water. The translations we have today aren't just translated by Catholics, and we have even more manuscripts available now than were available when you would claim the Catholics 'mistranslated' the word.
Greek word "Mia" means at least one, or the first one
Sorry, there isn't one scholar that's been involved in any of the bible translations that I'm aware of that agree with you, and I'm quite sure they've all spent much more time studying ancient Greek and the manuscripts available than you have.
I could also point out how the Church is married to Jesus, how we are married to Jesus, how nuns are polygamously married to Jesus, and how
The 'nun' argument holds no water with me, since I'm not Catholic. As to your statement that the 'church' is married to Jesus, I would hope you would understand that as symbolic since the scriptures also call us the members of Christ's body. No where does scripture say Christ has brideS.
I am merely after truth, and the more I dig, the less disapproval there is of polygamy in the bible.
That's because that is what you want to see. . .and mistranslation of 'mia' helps, doesn't it. ;)
Wow..!!
God, is still learning......!?!!?
Typical deceiving usage of the scripture here. DU continues to push the 'at least one' interpretation of the greek. Unfortunately, if DU actually would have READ the reference - which it seems he uses to justify Jewish polygamy - not Christian, he would have read
This paper has examined various interpretations of the phrase “husband of one wife” found in 1 Timothy 3:2. After examining the merits and deficiencies of each approach, it was concluded that the best interpretation is to translate the phrase “a one woman man” ...
This phraseology de facto rules out polygamy, addresses pagan influences of the lives of gentiles prior to salvation Christian and sets the standard. The fact that DU only screens the site for what he wants is very evident in the following:
I would thank anyone who can show me information that I currently lack, the Mia usage is not new to me, it is a topic of discussion on the web among "Christian Scholars" whatever that means, and I will point you to one site, want others, Google...
In the very first section of the website he references it makes the mia usage context very clear
“The antithesis of mia" is not ‘none,’ but ‘two’ or ‘many.’”10 In other words, the view “does not properly represent the force of the adjective ‘one’ (mias) which is placed first. The overseer must be the husband of ‘one’ wife, not ‘many.’”11
The site also maintains throughout the singularity of the wife - as opposed to DU's interpretation of 'at least one' wife. A simple trip to a concordance would show DU that mia does not mean at least one, or the first one. DU is being deliberately deceptive in the presentation of the information once again.
You are clearly disturbed that I did that and came to a completely different testamony. Deal with it and quit lying about me on this.
As to you having told me before, I must confess that if you did, I forgot. About the time you came on the scene, I fell on the ice and tore my patella tendon off of my quadriceps,
This was before your accident, you've been reminded, don't make the same mistake again.
I never said they were chained there that is an exaggeration, I said they were paid to do research and could not publish the results anywhere else.
One, you missed the obvious sarcasm, but two you implied a degree of duress and a lack of intellectual freedom on their part. You also said - without evidence - that the writers didn't believe what they were writing. This is contrary to mormonism which excommunicates members for publishing facts that show mormonism in a bad light.
No, I cannot prove that the practice of polygamy is required for salvation neither do I believe it to be a requirement.
Unfortunately you are not following your canon or the spoken words and actions of your prophets. They were pretty set on it - even willing to go to jail over it.
I do believe the Practice of polygamy is apparent and approved in the Bible. I do not expect you to agree with that though.
That the bible presents a historical account of the lives of men - yes, there was polygamy. Was it approved of - mear recording of the history does not equate to approval, otherwise you would have to approve of a lot of other behavior recorded there too.
Run away!
Your words are yours , not God’s.’
The angels, sons of God, left their “first estate”, and by genetic manipulation multiplied their own spirits in the bodies got from the sexual union [”going in to”] with their Adam daughter wives, who then -after that- bore the nephillim to them.
Angels can appear as men. they can eat men food and men can eat angel’s food [which “manna” was, and which was rained down from an open window in heaven for forty years, six days a week to feed the children of Israel].
The homosexual men of Sodom wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who stayed in Lot’s house the night before Sodom was nuked.
You make up stories that are not in the Word of God and make claims against what the Word of God says, refuting not me, but what the Word states. You, by that, call the Holy spirit a liar, who recorded these things through men of old in the OT, NT, Book of Enoch, Book of Jasher [the chronicles of the tribes, from Adam to until Joshua went into Canaan].
Also these things are are found recorded in the Book of Jubilees, the Book of Giants [dead sea scrolls], and others.
The angels who sinned by taking wives of daughters of Adam committed fornication by their unlawful unions, and so got chained in hell beneath, for their sexual fornication, as a warning to other angels who would be tempted.
Jude:vs 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
“And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, are chained in hell”, like Sodom was nuked for the same sin of fornication, as a waring to others;
“giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh”.
Those angels are the fathers of the demons, who are disembodied and roam earth, possessing men who believe their lies to write words against God’s words, deceiving and seducing, tempting to all manner of uncleannesses and fornications, tormenting and afflicting sons of Adam by their legal right to do so until they are gathered by the angels, as the tares sown by the enemy, and burned in the fire at the harvest.
Your deceptive usage of clear passages in a long string of historic posts has been pointed out time and again by myself and others. I don't think you'll get much traction from your 'Hillary Clintonesque' I didn't remember that I had told you on NUMEROUS occasions I have read the bom, have a copy on my shelf with all my other cult references including a JW NWT. And yes, the bom is a hideously boring read, 50% of some passages are repetition of the same phrase over and over and over. The Genesis 'begats' are more enlightening.
I have been real gentle in applying the term liar to you, so your assertion that I am too liberal in using it just doesn't stick. Just remember, the web is watching your use of the term too.
God calls our kind/spirit/being “Adam”. He gave Adam the authority to rule all the earth and to name all the other kinds/spirits/beings created for earth, on land and in the air.
God calls us “sons of Adam”= “ben Adam”, collectively, and when singling out the female Adam persons, we are called “daughters of Adam” =”bath Adam”.
In the Hebrew, Adam is written these many times and translated these many ways;
AV — man 408, men 121, Adam 13, person(s) 8, common sort + 07230 1, hypocrite 1. That is over 450 times. You can see what the Word says in these places about Adam and ben Adam and bath Adam and persons in Adam by looking at all of the references, linked from this page:
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H0120&t=kjv
“Question 1: Where in the prophets is the Son of Man seen in heaven, for Jesus to make these comments from:
Jhn 6:62 [What] and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?
Jhn 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of Man which is in heaven.
Question 2: Where is this written, in the OT:
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
It is not from Isaiah, by your own measure of words, and Paul states that it is “scripture”, but can you find it in that which you hold sacred?
Question 3: Where in the scripture is this written:
Jhn 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the writing hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Question 4: Where in the Scripture is this written:
Jhn 20:9 For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
Question 5: Where in the Scripture did Paul read the names of the magicians who withstood Moses:
2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
Question 6: Where in the Scripture did Peter believe this that he quoted to Cornelius & co:
Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation;
Question 7: Where did the prophets promise the Good news of Jesus Christ, as Paul said, in this passage:
Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
Rom 1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
Question 8: Where did the “Wisdom of God” say this, that Jesus quotes:
Luk 11:49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and [some] of them they shall slay and persecute:
Question 9: And where is the Scripture of Truth written, from which the angel showed Daniel the history of the future of Daniel’s people, until the end of the world. How did the angel know these things, and how did Daniel know what the angel meant, by the “Scripture of Truth”, and where was that that scripture of truth at:
Dan 10:21 But I will shew thee that which is written/inscribed in the scripture of truth: and one binds with me in these things, Michael your prince. [a literal rendering of the original]
Question 10: where did the author of Hebrews read Enoch’s testimony, that “he pleased God” and was translated:
Hbr 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.”
Question 11: Why did Jesus call Himself the “AMEN”, the ancient Egyptian name for the “Hidden God”, the “True God”, “God of Truth”, who created all things [whose image they corrupted, as all nations did, as Paul stated in Romans 1]; where is it written that Jesus “hidden God; the Truth”, in ancient writings, that Jesus knew the readers of the Revelation He gave to John would be familiar with and understand exactly “Who” “Amen” is:
Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Question 12: Where in the “sacred scriptures” would the readers of John’s revelation have read what Jesus referred to, about Balaam’s deed, which Jesus referred to, in Rev 2:
Rev 2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
-Where’s the record of that deed? how does it read? Why did Jesus expect the readers of John’s Revelation of Him to know what He meant?
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.