Especially the "wife" going to the Celesital Kingdom who is called from Behind the Veil on the far right, first row.
What a brave woman Carolyn is.
Posted on 04/18/2008 8:38:05 AM PDT by DFG
bump
I can understand why the old geezers want to get rid of the teenage boys, they don’t want any competition. They can’t have a bunch of teenage boys around when there won’t be enough girls for the rapists. Those predator pedaphiles should spend the rest of their lives in prison. What a sick life-style, take up all the women by force and get rid of your comptetition because they didn’t follow the rules. At some point, the grown women should be held accoutable too, after all, they are mothers.
I meant Mr. “Sir” Admin Moderator might be a “she”. :)
Maybe you are right, the men should all be thrown in prison while the women raise the children. The women must have been abused to be made so submissive. Those men are disgusting beyone description. I am surprised the government let this raping of teenage girls go on for so long. I don’t care if they claim it is part of their religion, that is a lousy excuse even for a pathetic pedofile.
No it is not but apparently it is with you.
Original:
Personally, I WONT call polygamy a sin because I can not find a single statement in the Bible that does so.
Using your word substitution method:
Personally, I WONT call marrying more than one woman a Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God. because I can not find a single statement in the Bible that calls being married to more than one woman against God's will.
In your feeble attempt to counter my personal view, you attempt to use only part of a scripture, out of context, and deliberately ignoring what is called a sin in the passage you cite. From this, you then attempt to apply an absolutist view that if any passage in the bible remotely refers to having more than one wife as even possibly being unwise that it is somehow automatically a sin.
Boy, talk about your absolutes.
And further, when I show you this false logic trail through analogous passage from within the same scripture, you intentionally transfer your absolutist views in a personal attack on me.
Qualify all you want about Deut 17:17, but to totally ignore it is distasteful.
Killing is distasteful but God commanded the Israelites to kill on a number of occasions. Your absolutist view would have all that is distasteful be interpreted as sin. Your absolutist logic would lead to a position where "Thou shall not kill" directly contradicts the sack of Jericho.
What I'm showing is that you have yet to provide a single reference in the Bible where having more than one wife is a sin, yet I have already provided to you indirect reference to where God's prophet lists King David's blessings and having more than one wife is listed as one of those blessings. Further, Nathan goes on to say that if David had asked, he would have been granted MORE.
So since you insist on your absolutist position, answer me this single question. How can a sinless God grant a blessing that is sin?
No problem. Levity can be a bit difficult to recognize around here lately....
Uh. (You make this sound like this stuff all occurred in some underground cave where people didn't find out the "goings-on" of others @ the compound.) For an underaged girl to be so-called "married" = enablers by her parents, her "sister wives," the men who "solemnized" these weddings in the temple (leaders), men who carried the bed(s) into the temple, the men themselves, the people who funded the purchase of the land to begin with and subsidized it in any way, etc.)
How many times have some of these people you are railing aginst...
Well, ya know, the O.J. types of the world are absolute magnets for finger-pointing. (see my earlier post on that parallel). And please don't pretend that the O.J. advocates weren't "outfingerpointing" others during his trial.
Due process is very important. Advocating for it does not imply that anyone doing so wants criminals to get off scott free. Why do you not seem to understand this? The very important point here is that if we allow due process to be violated in this case, who stops it in the next case when our side may have an axe to grind?
You know, "due process" concerns are a reality. (I'm not downplaying them). But usually the "mess-ups" by governmental officials come out around trial time or months or a year down the road...like the Duke case.
But just because folks can point to Waco or Duke doesn't mean "governmental incompetence" is always the worst thing that can happen. I would say, for example, that attorney competence was quite effective...it worked for O.J. (Sometimes you can overdo due process). [And believe me, if O.J. had had this number of cultural defenders among so-called conservatives shortly after his arrest, I'm not sure he would have even ever been brought to trial]
It is really sad, isn't it? I must confess I have not read Carolyn's book "Escape" - only excerpts. But, what powerful excerpt they have been.
When she talks about the drama of trying to get all of her children in the van at 3 or 4 am - and the other "Alpha Females" realize she is up to something?! Oh. My. Gosh.
I have seen several interviews on television of her. She was on Nancy Grace this week. Incredible interview.
Nancy Grace lost me during the Duke "rape" case. She went after the lacrosse players even thought the evidence was terrible. That is not the case here with the FLDS.
Nancy Grace was upset last night during Carolyn Jessop's account of how her "husband" (read: Rapist) would "Break the infants by spanking them, and then holding their heads under water. He would repeat this for over an hour."
How nice that they don’t start raping the girls till they reach puberty, kids go through puberty long before they are adults! There are many years between the two events. Are we supposed to be happy that they wait till the kids lost all their baby teeth? What a sick group. I would like to ring someone’s neck!
I guess that makes them a traitor to the ol' boys' club, huh?
:(
Just looking at the 'other' wives...imagine fighting your way past that bunch at 3 a.m
Popular opinion generally frowns on mature men having sex with with children, whether they be homosexual, straight, pro or anti abortion, disease free or infected.
What you are defending is the right of one person, or small ruling elite to take away the freedom of thought and choice for a group.
The Amish may raise their children in accordance with their beliefs that conflict with the broader culture, however they respect the maturing child's right to accept or reject those beliefs. In other words, they respect the individuals right to choose, and to know what those choices are.
It is the difference between being enslaved and dominated by the whims of a tyrant and being free.
Welcome to the thread(s) rodeo-mamma.
I’d hold ‘em down for you to do the deed!
Especially the "wife" going to the Celesital Kingdom who is called from Behind the Veil on the far right, first row.
What a brave woman Carolyn is.
Only one wife goes the Celestial Kingdom? I thought they all went, or got there, were called there or...I guess I don’t understand (gladly) the innerworkings of ‘this.’
If he does not......
Do you now see the power they have over these women?
Ansel, it’s my perception that women married much earlier as a practice two to three hundred years ago. Even some states in the United States had laws on the books that allowed young women as young as fourteen to get married with parental consent as late as a few years ago. Texas is one of them.
Take care.
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.