Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JRochelle; colorcountry; Utah Binger; P-Marlowe; rightazrain; All
I just saw this posted on another thread Texas Authorities Defend Sect Raid

He repeatedly argued the temple is a holy site protected by the First Amendment's religion clause, and that the state should have taken care to make a search of the building as limited as possible.

This brings up the possibility that one reason the mormons here are so vehemently defending the FLDS is because if this case is successful for the State of Texas and the federal government, the secrecy of the SLC LDS temples may be questioned.

THAT, in effect could end the practice of the mormon church of forbidding entrance to "unworthy" people so they could attend the weddings of their children, family members and friends.

An added problem for the LDS church would be that these "unworthies" who are members, (non-members are still not allowed entry) could no longer be coerced into bringing "up to date" their tithing donations, a requirement for a temple recommend to enter the temples. I think the practice is questionable for a tax-exempt organization, anyway.

A double slam to the LDS...loss of control and loss of money.

Explains a LOT!

2,480 posted on 04/11/2008 9:15:01 AM PDT by greyfoxx39 (New apologist mantra..and defense.."love the POLYGAMY sin" but hate the sinner.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2467 | View Replies ]


To: greyfoxx39

...loss of control, loss of money, and loss of eternal polygamist sex.

That my dear FRiend is the ultimate triple threat.


2,482 posted on 04/11/2008 9:21:28 AM PDT by colorcountry (To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2480 | View Replies ]

To: greyfoxx39

wow. I think you hit the proverbial nail....

No wonder the LDS here are freakin’ and running in circles chasing their tails!


2,486 posted on 04/11/2008 9:48:13 AM PDT by bonfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2480 | View Replies ]

To: greyfoxx39

Bet the attorneys for the LDS are busy busy busy.


2,487 posted on 04/11/2008 9:49:24 AM PDT by bonfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2480 | View Replies ]

To: greyfoxx39

Yeppers, you just nailed it.....loss of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$..... can’t have that can we??


2,488 posted on 04/11/2008 9:49:25 AM PDT by conservativegramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2480 | View Replies ]

To: greyfoxx39

Yeppers, you just nailed it.....loss of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$..... can’t have that can we??


2,489 posted on 04/11/2008 9:49:26 AM PDT by conservativegramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2480 | View Replies ]

To: greyfoxx39; JRochelle; colorcountry; Utah Binger; P-Marlowe; rightazrain; All
He repeatedly argued the temple is a holy site protected by the First Amendment's religion clause, and that the state should have taken care to make a search of the building as limited as possible. This brings up the possibility that one reason the mormons here are so vehemently defending the FLDS is because if this case is successful for the State of Texas and the federal government, the secrecy of the SLC LDS temples may be questioned.

When the feds were seeking out Mormon "cohabs" during the 1880s...according to one author...Nothing was considered off-limits when it came to searches by government agents (B. Carmon Hardy, The Solemn Covenant, p. 49) [I recommend folks get this 1992 book]

2,552 posted on 04/11/2008 8:24:10 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2480 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson