Posted on 04/18/2008 8:38:05 AM PDT by DFG
They showed a pictured of the man on Fox tonight who is in 50’s that forced a 15 year old girl to marry him. According to the girl he did all kinds of horrible things to her. By the way, he is a convicted sex offender. Now go back to your bunker and count your water bottles. I swear, I can’t believe we have people here on FR who will take up for pedophiles.
You frankly haven’t a clue trying to cite ‘fruit from a poisonous tree’. CPS can go in with or without a warrant if not resisted. That several females in the 13 to 14 age range have been found pregnant at the compound makes you exposed as the half-whit you are. Or are you a mormon and therefore obliged to defend polygamy regardless of the degeneracy and deviancy? ... Joe Smith had one ‘wife’ who was 14, and he had elevan who were still married to other alive men. Nice adulterous peepstone/divination false prophet, that.
>>Look at it again it says age 15 to 44, in fact it doesn’t say anything about exclusions, it just says that it covers women 15 to 44.<<
I meant to say it excludes everyone under 15. So I hope you can see that the chart would only have averages for persons of 15 and above, which for your purposes is a serious weakness indeed. It’s like claiming that for households which have more than 4 people, the average is 6.42.
And as DoughtyOne pointed out, it is a very small statistical sample. We know nothing about whether these numbers come from a single region, economic class, etc.
Nobody has proved the original call was a hoax.
A girl named Sarah has gone missing from the cult compound, according to the other girls.
This was all carried out lawfully, and the second warrant is based on observed underage pregnancies, AND the statements from the girls that they were raped at young ages.
The order to remove was signed by a judge after she examined the evidence. This was all done according to the law.
Just because YOU don’t agree with the outcome doesn’t make any of this illegal or unconstitutional.
“What makes you think that this same thing could not happen to you?”
Other than the fact that I don’t live in a compound that makes child rape a part of it’s religious teachings?
“The complaint calls are proving to be a hoax.”
So far it’s not been established that the calls were a hoax. Read the complete story on the calls in Colorado.
“Govt Agencies and law enforcement have a duty to investigate the complaint for its truthfulness.”
And, that is exactly what the government did. In the process of investigating the truthfulness, the government found evidence of child rape. Even if it is provent that the calls were a hoax, the investigation was based upon a good faith warrant and any evidence found as a result of that warrant can be used in other prosecutions.
“There was no need rush to this. The compound has been there for some time. Mark my word, the hastiness and carelessness of executing this move will fall apart in the court system.”
There was every reason to investigate this situation in a rapid and expeditious manner. That is exactly what the government has done. There is no defense for what the FLDS has done in that compound. The cases will stand.
First of all the following passages...Gen. 2:24 & Matt. 19:5 are both meaningless if you somehow consider that a man "married" to 2 or 7 wives = one flesh...or that a woman "married" to 8 men = one flesh...or that 5 men "married" to 5 women in a "group marriage" = one flesh. (Your absolute insistence to overlook Deut. 17:17 means that you are not out on the limb whereby since you can't find a Scripture that calls "group marriage" a sin...well, next you know, taxcontrol is advocating "group marriage" as a "blessing." Or next thing ya know, since Bilhah slept with both Jacob & his son, Bilhah, Taxcontrol will be advocating for a slave woman to have two "husbands." Or since David's concubines slept with David and his son Absalom, same thing.)
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)
Jesus said: Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matthew 19:5-9)
I mean, next thing you know, you're going to tell us that "sister wives" in these sects are "one flesh" to each other. (Do you really believe that?)
2 Sam. 12:8...where you equate God as a source of something as an automatic "blessing"...let's see if you're consistent:
When the LORD began to speak through Hosea, the LORD said to him, "Go, take to yourself an adulterous wife and children of unfaithfulness, because the land is guilty of the vilest adultery in departing from the LORD." So he married Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son. (Hosea 1:2-3)
Taxcontrol, you keep saying over & over again that God would not have one of his followers do something sinful. Do you think it's OK for you to marry a prostitute who keeps plying her trade on the side as was the case with Gomer?
Finally, you keep forgetting that the standard from Genesis on is "one wife." That was true in Gen. 2:24 (no mention of "one or more" wives). That was true in th New Testament.
And that's where your pretzellogic shows how twisted you've taken things: Even if you want to ignore Dt. 17:17, If a doctor writes you a prescription that reads, "Take one pill a day," are we going to hear from your mouth, "Well, ya know...this prescription doesn't really say I can't take more than one pill...I suppose that's OK as long as I don't take many." (Sorry, TC, you're thereby NOT following the prescription).
As poster Godzilla mentioned on another thread in pulling from this source: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/polygame.html
1. The clearest verse comes from Jesus in His teaching on divorce:
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (NIV Matt 19.8-9, pp. Mark 10.1-12)
The key thing to note here is that this argument fails if polygamy is acceptable! Jesus' point is that improper divorce does not nullify a marriage, and if the first marriage still stands, then a "second" marriage is adultery--and NOT simply 'polygamy'! This is very clear.
2. Paul, in Romans 7, actually uses the same principle, but applies it to the wife:
So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man. (Rom 7)
Notice that a polyandrous relationship would also be adultery.
3. There is another, more general argument expressed in the New Testament, concerning the example of godly leaders.
It is clear ......those in Church government/leadership are to be monogamous (the 'husband of one wife' clause shows up in both statements of elder/deacon qualifications: 1 Tim 3.2,12 and Titus 1.6).
But these leaders are told to be examples to the flock, and the believers are told to follow the example of the apostles, disciples, and leaders. [Phil 3.17; 4.9; 1 Thess 1.6,7; 2 Thess 3.7,9; 1 Tim 4.12; Tit 2.7; 1 Pet 5.3; 1 Cor 4.6; 1 Cor 11.1]
Just remember the government’s case against the McMartin family? Were you one pushing for their prosecution?
Do you really think the government employees are allowed to operate on “good faith” information without making an exhaustive investigation of the complaint. If the government wanted to produce the informer, it could have. Many hours of phone calls were taped. I’m no investigator, but those call could have been traced. The FBI is good at that. It was better for the government to have the caller remain unknown. What they have done is just expedient. What happens after the they have prosecuted he and then come after thee? Since this has been made public, you can only hope that any enemy you have doesn’t make the call to Children’s Protective Services on you. If you have children, the caller can suggest child abuse; If you coach a kids’ team, it will be sexual abuse; If.... you get the idea. Just the charges will bankrupt you and after years of litigation; losing your family, your friends, your house, the bank account, and possibly your health, and found innocent, what say you then about the way the good government dealt with you?
You are more of a gullible than I am to sit and take what ever the government runs you through and not ask for due process. Government bureaucrats have not gotten better since Ruby Ridge, Waco, Ellian Gonzales, and the McMartins, to name a few.
I am for prosecuting each and every “perp” on the ranch, but the rule of law is vital to a free society.
Time will and sunshine will produce the truth. I’m willing to wait for the end.
Uh, yes. They are allowed to take quick action if a child is reported as being in danger.
The original phone calls were NOT taped. They were reported with written notes, according to the policy of the shelter which received them.
Why are you emphasizing “original”? One of Jeffs daughters, no longer with the sect, is reported to have 30 hrs of tapes. Those surely could have been used to trace the call. I don’t have any dog in this fight except that the time honored and constitutionally protected right of citizens seem to have been mangled for the sake of expediency.
Are you talking about Flora Jessup?
Because there were two sets of calls.
One set from Sarah to a shelter in Texas. NO TAPES of those calls were taken.
The other set was taken by Flora Jessops, from a woman claiming to be Sarah’s twin, and she did NOT claim to be in Texas. Those were recorded. They came after the first calls were public knowledge.
Interesting how you are either unwilling or unable to answer even one of the most formative apologetics questions that must be answered to even have enough common ground for a discussion.
Also interesting is how you continue to try to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions. I am not, nor have I ever been Mormon, LDS or any denomination associated with the Mormon faith.
But I can see that presenting even the most basic apologetics is upsetting to you, so I will simply stop being your provocateur. Good day sir.
You accuse me of living in sin. Please sir, be more specific. What sin do you accuse me of?
No, not a diversionary tactic at all. Rather simply trying to go back to where we might have common ground. Rather than repeat prior statements, please read post 507.
As a Christian, I tell you that we are all in a sinful state while yet in this body and stumbling along with our individual mind/emotions/will of soul. That our sinning does not instantly draw the spirit death sentence is a blessing from God to each of us individually. ... And that is not an invitation for you to share with us publically the sins with which you indulge your lusts. Are you familiar with the principles at the heart of God’s Grace in Christ Jesus ... How Jesus took the sentence due to you and me, and we may access that ‘substitutionary death’ by faith and faith alone ... That doing so will slam the balance of righteousness into our favor by no works of our own doing? If you say that you do not sin, you are either deceived to believe that lie, or know it is not the truth but say it to ‘raise a stir’. Would you like for me to go on?
Fair enough, I will accept the general charge of sin that we all live under. The tone of your statement was difficult to divine from just a text message. That is why I asked the clarification question.
Here's a verse which denotes clearly that polygamy is prohibited.
1 Corinthians 7:2
But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.
As to your Greek exegesis in re: 1 Tim. 3:2, it is not an "unintended emphasis on the singular." The verse could have simply said dei oun ton episkopon anepilhmpton einai, gunaikoV andra. It didn't. It places miaV right smackdab in the uncomfortable middle of that whole condition (well to be technical it places it right before gunaikoV the genitive singular noun as it modifies it which is before the noun andra). In Greek, the genitive shows possession, so that without the miaV present, the verse would still read "husband of a wife" when translated. So, to insert the "one" there is to put a very intentional emphasis upon the singular. Not unintentional at all.
First, let me state that I'm no Greek scholar and only have a layman's understanding.
Now as to the genitive singular noun. It is my understanding that one noun in the genitive case helps to qualify another noun by showing its “class” or “kind”. To my mind, this would seem to clarify the kind of relationship ... i.e. being married as opposed to being betrothed, widowed, etc.
It also strikes me that Genitive of Apposition may apply here. Apposition is when two words are used to refer to the same thing. For example, in the English sentence, “I know David, Carol's husband” the phrases “David” and “Carol's husband” are in apposition to each other. in Greek, the genitive can be used as a form of apposition, as in the expression “land of Egypt” - this does not mean Egypt's land, or the land belonging to Egypt. Instead, it means the land that is Egypt; the land and Egypt refer to one and the same thing. Again, seeming to place emphasis on the state of marriage, not the number of wives.
I feel I should give a bit of back ground for my own study into this specific scripture. Several years ago, I maintained the generally accepted interpretation of this scripture as "one" wife. However, a man was nominated to be a Deacon for our church who was divorced (It was known to me that his wife cheated on him) and had since remarried. At the time I believed that a man who divorced and remarried was a "serial polygamist". So while trivial to others, this scripture caused a good deal of sleepless nights while I wrestled to understand God's intent.
Thus began my journey to read and understand this scripture in it's original context. I eventually came to the my current understanding of "...husband of a wife.." meaning that the Deacon should be married to an active female participate in his household. In other words, no concubines, slaves, being previously married, etc do not provide enough qualification. Now why would that be necessary for a Deacon?
By reason (not specific to scripture) I can see where a Deacon who is called upon to minister to the whole of the congregation could be placed in a compromising position where temptation is either actual or implied by others. Being married would to at least one wife would be a buffer against such accusations or temptations.
However, ".... husband of ONE wife ...." is more problematic. This means that a man who divorced a woman for cause would be unable to serve ever again as a Deacon or Elder. Assuming a Godly man was blameless in the unfaithfulness of his wife, I can not reconcile a just God preventing an innocent man from serving because of the actions of his ungodly wife.
King David was allowed more wives so long as they were approved by the Lord if he took it upon himself with no regards to the Lord he was violating the Ordinance of the Lord covenant.
Sad some here are unable to acknowledge that Lord at certain times requested a lot things that seem contrary to the Lord’s doctrine for his own special purport but those who are pure in heart wait on the Lord and most time he gives an understanding to his ways which are different from ours.
Example Hosea and Gomer marriage that seemed odd, but the Lord had a lesson to teach and to bring about his generation.
When I read the Hosea and Gomer union it reminded me of the Lord vineyard and the pruning and grafting to make weak things strong.
Somehow the Lord felt Gomer line could be salvage.
Some here dwell so much on sexual sin they are unable to see the bigger picture.
Could it be the Lord Covenant of Plural marriage does the same thing to take some branches that are headed towards a dead end became weaken somewhere along the line and this is a way for the Lord to graft them into a stronger line.
Many should read about the work in the Lord Vineyard and the Lord knows which one that can be grafted and which ones will burn!
Now what happen Eldorado had nothing to do with the Lord Vineyard.
Matt 21
28 ¶ But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.
There are Vineyard story and another one which follows in v 33
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.