Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Legalized polygamy opens the door to theocracy
Montreal Gazette/Vancouver Sun ^ | Oct. 21, 2010 | Daphne Branham

Posted on 10/22/2010 5:53:55 AM PDT by Colofornian

It's not surprising that breakaway Mormons say they love their polygamous lives in the affidavits they've sworn to support their position that practising it is their constitutional right.

What is surprising is that the affidavits are steeped in the myth of persecution. Filed in advance of the constitutional reference case, which is scheduled to be heard starting Nov. 22 in B.C. Supreme Court, they reveal that almost all of the breakaway Mormons say they live in fear of being jailed or having their children taken away from them.

Yet, the first time such men were charged in Canada with polygamy was two years ago. The case against prominent polygamists James Oler and Winston Blackmore - leaders of the Bountiful community near Creston, B.C. - was thrown out of court in September 2009.

B.C. Attorney General Mike de Jong then asked the B.C. Supreme Court to rule on the legality of Canada's law against polygamy.

Even though the federal and provincial governments did take First Nations and Sons of Freedom children from their families and put them in residential schools, that has never happened to members of breakaway Mormon sects.

There are other surprises. The affidavits clearly indicate that these groups believe that if the anti-polygamy section of the Criminal Code is struck down in B.C. Supreme Court, they will get all of the benefits of Canadian society and more.

They believe it would mean an unfettered guarantee of religious freedom. And, unlike polyamorists who also want the section struck down, breakaway Mormons want as little as possible to do with secular Canadian society.

In her affidavit, a 24-year-old woman from the fundamentalist enclave of Bountiful says attending Cranbrook's College of the Rockies was "going into what I see as a wild and unstable world."

"Out there people were behaving in ways that are not in accord with my beliefs - fighting, impatient, yelling, dating and breaking up, drinking, using foul language."

In another affidavit, a woman identified as Witness No. 2 complains that Revenue Canada has cut back child-tax benefits to some plural wives. It says they are living common-law and must claim the income of the father of their child, regardless of whether others are already claiming it.

"This has been a real hardship," she says.

In the doctrine of these breakaway groups - unlike in the Quran - there is no requirement that men must be financially able to support all of their wives and children. There is also no limit on the number of wives male members of these sects can have.

Witness No. 2 is the first of two wives. Married at 16, she has nine children ranging in age from seven to 26 and is a nurse and midwife.

(In an unusual ruling last month, Chief Justice Robert Bauman agreed that members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints could file anonymous affidavits and testify behind screens. Only Bauman will know who the witnesses are.)

Witness No. 2 complains that the breakaway Mormons "have an extremely hard time helping women immigrate when they marry as a plural spouse as it is very hard to get medical insurance."

She complains that education is too expensive and "the kind of jobs we can get working with our own people are mostly not high-paying jobs as we live in a small rural community."

But integration is out of the question.

"This rural life is precious to us," she says.

So, if polygamy is legalized, she wants money for education programs for polygamous women "tailored to our needs."

Bountiful's bishop Oler was one of the two men charged in 2008 and one of the few to file an affidavit in his own name.

Oler explains that the members of his sect believe that God decides who marries whom. God tells the prophet, who relays the message to the bride and groom.

A woman has "the privilege" of praying for inspiration of whom she should marry, says Oler. If she receives "inspiration," she can tell the prophet.

"I am not personally aware of any case where the Prophet has refused to honour that inspiration," Oler says in his affidavit.

The current prophet is Warren Jeffs. He is in jail in Utah awaiting retrial on charges of being an accomplice to rape after forcing a 14-year-old girl to marry her 19-year-old first cousin. He is also awaiting extradition to Texas where he is charged with bigamy and two counts of sexually assaulting two of his child brides.

Even though Oler says both men and women "have free agency to chose whether to marry or not," men cannot ask to marry a particular woman. They can only express a desire to be married.

In a separate affidavit, a 25-year-old unmarried Bountiful man argues that is free choice.

"I will have a choice on (sic) who I will marry because I want to marry whoever God reveals to the Prophet."

If the church leaders find out that a man is abusing his wife or children, he says, "His family will be taken from him and given to a man who will love and care for them carefully.

"I know this seems harsh," he adds. It's not clear whether his empathy is for the men or for the women and children.

But what is clear is that fundamentalist Mormons members believe that a win in court would clear the way for them to set up a distinct society - a theocracy within our secular, liberal democracy.

Vancouver Sun


TOPICS: Current Events; Moral Issues; Other Christian; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: beck; canada; flds; fundamentalists; glennbeck; homosexualagenda; inman; islam; liberalism; mittromney; moralabsolutes; mormonism; mormons; polygamy; romney; shariah; shariahlaw
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last
From the article: There are other surprises. The affidavits clearly indicate that these groups believe that if the anti-polygamy section of the Criminal Code is struck down in B.C. Supreme Court, they will get all of the benefits of Canadian society and more. They believe it would mean an unfettered guarantee of religious freedom. And, unlike polyamorists who also want the section struck down, breakaway Mormons want as little as possible to do with secular Canadian society.

Uh, let's set the record straight:
(1) There are very few fundamentalist Mormons alive today who were ever mainstream Mormons...so they are not "breakaway Mormons."
(2) That's even almost completely the case of their parents. So their parents weren't "breakaway Mormons," either.
(3) The fundamentalist Mormons never left their "scriptural authority" -- Joseph Smith and his Doctrine & Covenants 132 revelation -- to practice polygamy. The mainstream Mormons -- despite never sidelining D&C 132 -- are the ones who "broke away" from their founder.

1 posted on 10/22/2010 5:54:07 AM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
I have a question. If as taught lds believe Jesus was crucified because He was a polygamist, even though lds will tell you polygamy was a common practice at the time and a major tenant of their “new” faith - why did their god change his mind on the issue? So wouldn't the lds who still practice polygamy actually be the true lds?
2 posted on 10/22/2010 6:04:59 AM PDT by svcw (Legalism is enforced revelation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
What is surprising is that the affidavits are steeped in the myth of persecution. Filed in advance of the constitutional reference case, which is scheduled to be heard starting Nov. 22 in B.C. Supreme Court, they reveal that almost all of the breakaway Mormons say they live in fear of being jailed or having their children taken away from them.

Yep, "fear of my family life being interrupted", is one of the things that keeps me from committing crimes too.

Poor persecuted Mormons should be above the law, kind of like democrats, they are "victims" too.

3 posted on 10/22/2010 6:08:14 AM PDT by Graybeard58 (Mark Kirk "republican" Illinois, not no but HELL NO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
From the article: It's not surprising that breakaway Mormons say they love their polygamous lives in the affidavits they've sworn to support their position that practising it is their constitutional right. What is surprising is that the affidavits are steeped in the myth of persecution. Filed in advance of the constitutional reference case, which is scheduled to be heard starting Nov. 22 in B.C. Supreme Court, they reveal that almost all of the breakaway Mormons say they live in fear of being jailed or having their children taken away from them. Yet, the first time such men were charged in Canada with polygamy was two years ago. The case against prominent polygamists James Oler and Winston Blackmore - leaders of the Bountiful community near Creston, B.C. - was thrown out of court in September 2009.

It's not surprising to me. They've learned well from their American cousins -- both the fundamentalist Mormons and mainstream Mormons -- and how they portray their own polygamous past...as one of "persecution"...when the federal marshals would track down polygamists in the 1880s and put them in jail.

And even during the Joseph Smith era -- the era before most outsiders learned of Mormonism's early polygamist roots, Mormons still love to play up a history of persecution myths:
(1): See, for example, the first entry at: Setting the record straight on the 'Hawn's' Mill Massacre In the article, it explains how the Mormons love to cite Jacob Haun (real name was spelled Jacob Hawn with a "w"), who was the owner of the Hawn's Mill. But Jacob Hawn was never a Mormon...(In that article, a historian discusses why Jacob and Harriet Hawn were never Mormons. "I like many other historians mainly assumed they were Mormons." But among other proofs, Baugh explained that they arrived earlier to Caldwell County before the Mormons, and no family records report that they were Mormons. So the mill that was attacked wasn't even a Mormon mill, after all. [Rewrite the history books]
(2) From the above-linked article: With 17 Mormons killed and 14 Mormons injured, the historian explained that the massacre on October 30, 1838 was the "singular most tragic event in terms of loss of life and injury enacted by an anti-Mormon element against the Latter-day Saints in our entire church's history." Well, I would hope that historians would present history in a more balanced way. What's NOT mentioned in that article is that 12 days before this attack:
On October 18, 1838, Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Lyman Wight, D. W. Patten at the head of 40 men made a descent on Gallatin, the county seat of Daviess, and they burned the only store and stole their goods. Previous to the 25th of October a great part of the Mormons residing in Caldwell County had returned home with their dividend of plunder.
* 6 days before this attack: • On October 25, 1838, the Battle of Crooked River: Mormon forces attacked (unknowingly?) the Missouri state militia under the command of Samuel Bogart. This incident became one of the principal points of conflicts in 1838 Missouri. The battle resulted in the death of three militia and the LDS leader, David Patten. One of the militia was taken prisoner by the Mormons. Source: http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/mormonism/are-christians-persecuting-mormons

(3) Beyond that, Mormons overdramatize how long the persecution lasted in Missouri:
* It was about 100 days in Jackson Co late spring/early Summer & early fall of '33;
* Another month or so-- maybe 40-45 days in Sept/Oct 1838 -- violence all occurring in Oct.
* Less than 5 months actual real time, all told.

In the first 100 of those days by less than 50 people in 1 county (400-500 did attend a council in mid-July but we have no record of how many in attendance of a meeting acted upon it...showing up at an event doesn't make you an oppressor or persecutor)
...and the committee who then attempted to foist themselves upon the Mormons were only 12 men...(Joseph Fielding Smith, Essentials in Church History, p. 133-134) --- out of a state-wide/county-wide pop of how many?

Joseph Fielding Smith says mob of 500 (p. 135) but no violence...did threaten it July 23, 1833. Smith says "about 1200 members forced to leave Jackson co." (p. 209). But the committee which forced them out only specified 11 families according to Smith earlier in the book. They forced 9 of 11 families to leave within a few mos. warning -- and the two remaining would finish up their business goods (Smith, p. 135).

Of course, some things happened in Nauvoo in 1844-1845...but not Kirtland, Ohio, which is sometimes included in the Mormon laundry list of persecuted places.

4 posted on 10/22/2010 6:11:24 AM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

It won’t be done for Mormons, it will be done for Muslims.


5 posted on 10/22/2010 6:13:04 AM PDT by GeronL (http://libertyfic.proboards.com <--- My Fiction/ Science Fiction Board)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: svcw
If as taught lds believe Jesus was crucified because He was a polygamist, even though lds will tell you polygamy was a common practice at the time and a major tenant of their “new” faith - why did their god change his mind on the issue?

I believe only Lds apostle Orson Hyde (and a few others) taught that Jesus was a polygamist. So, most Lds don't currently believe that. Yet, you don't see them denouncing past "apostles" like Hyde (or others) as false prophets because of that. (They like to have their cake and eat it, too).

6 posted on 10/22/2010 6:14:27 AM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
It won’t be done for Mormons, it will be done for Muslims.

Yup.

It's imbedded in Sharia Law, which Mormons are trying to get recognized in almost every country.

7 posted on 10/22/2010 6:15:25 AM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
The LDS narrative also does not reference Joseph Smith's practice of setting up banks, looting their assets and then allowing them to fail.

Joseph Smith was far from the only itinerant bank scammer in the nineteenth century Midwest - plenty of similar operators were also the occasion of public meetings, organizations of posses, tar and featherings, assassinations and expulsions.

There is an economic narrative to this that seems to rarely be discussed.

8 posted on 10/22/2010 6:21:50 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Did you know that in Canadian courts a Muslim woman does not have to take off her mask? How can you face your accuser that way? How can we prove the woman really is who she says she is?

If the woman is “made to” remove it, its only done after all males are out of the court room.

really.

(*Ezra Levant’s website)


9 posted on 10/22/2010 6:22:32 AM PDT by GeronL (http://libertyfic.proboards.com <--- My Fiction/ Science Fiction Board)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Legalized polygamy opens the door to theocracy

I tend to think it would simply lead to further errosion of the family.

10 posted on 10/22/2010 6:22:48 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
The LDS narrative also does not reference Joseph Smith's practice of setting up banks, looting their assets and then allowing them to fail. Joseph Smith was far from the only itinerant bank scammer in the nineteenth century Midwest - plenty of similar operators were also the occasion of public meetings, organizations of posses, tar and featherings, assassinations and expulsions. There is an economic narrative to this that seems to rarely be discussed.

Well, that was certainly the case in Kirtland Ohio, where Smith skipped out of town in the middle of the night because of that.

BTW, a building did burn in Kirtland before leaving...as the financial problems "coerced" Smith to leave Kirtland.

Note this admission by this Mormon Utah journalist (Doug Gibson): ...opposition leaders sought to use a[n LDS] printing office to manufacture anti-LDS tracts. That printing office was destroyed by fire to prevent that, and historians believe it was the ever-faithful Sherman who set the blaze to thwart Smith’s enemies. Early Mormon Sherman died without ever knowing he was called to be an apostle

Gibson is referencing Lyman Royal Sherman. Of course, we don't tend to hear these details from the Mormon historians or the common Mormon narrative, do we?

BTW, in that Doug Gibson column, he wrote: However, unknown to Smith, Sherman’s health was ruined after the Kirtland strife and he was dying.

("Unknown to Smith"...so the Mormon god "calls" Sherman through Lds leaders, but they don't have a "clue" that Sherman is dying? I thought the way the Mormons interpret Amos 3:7 would "kick in," that the Mormon god doesn't do anything without cluing in his "prophet"?)

That sounded an awful lot like the D&C passage where Smith says David W. Patten would go serve as a missionary. But then Patten dies in Missouri Oct., 1838. Without serving as a missionary, and letting this D&C passage serve as yet another Smith false prophesy.

James K. Walker writes of an example "of a close-dated unconditional prophecy [of Joseph Smith's] found in Doctrine & Covenants 114, which is Mormon "scripture."

Writes Walker: This two-verse prophecy given April 17, 1838 are instructions to David W. Patten, one of the LDS twelve Apostles. He was to prepare to go on a mission with the other eleven (Apostles) into "all the world." According to the revelation, the mission was to take place "next spring" which would give the prophecy a "closed-date" somewhere around April or May of 1839. Less than three months later, the "twelve" were given a specific date to leave (April 26, 1839) and one of the apostles, Thomas Marsh, was instructed to stay behind to "publish my word" (Doctrine and Covenants Section 118). The date of April 26, 1839 came and as History of the Church, written by Joseph Smith, records, "The Brethren arrived at Far West, and proceeded to transact the business of their mission" (Vol. 3 p.336). However, David W. Patten was not part of that mission. David Patten was not present because he had died in October of 1838. History of the Church reports: "Captain Patten was carried some of the way in a litter, but it caused so much distress that he begged to be left by the way side...he died that night" (Vol. 3, p. 171). Rather than going on a mission with the Twelve next spring, as Joseph Smith had prophesied in 1838, Patten died before the next year even came.

Source: James K. Walker, Watchman Expositor, vol. 9, #9, 1992 David W. Patten: False Prophecy in the Doctrine and Covenants

I guess the Mormon god is not omniscient and sovereign and has trouble gauging these kinds of things, eh?

11 posted on 10/22/2010 6:50:55 AM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
"Legalized polygamy opens the door to theocracy"

See "If This Goes On..." in Robert A. Heinlein's anthology "The Past Through Tomorrow" for a remarkably similar plot of this hypothesis.

12 posted on 10/22/2010 6:56:58 AM PDT by BlueLancer (I'm getting a fine tootsy-frootsying right here...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

What is surprising is that the affidavits are steeped in the myth of persecution.
_____________________________________________

What is surprising is that the posts here are steeped in the myth of persecution.


13 posted on 10/22/2010 7:02:59 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Witness No. 2 complains that the breakaway Mormons “have an extremely hard time helping women immigrate when they marry as a plural spouse as it is very hard to get medical insurance.”
___________________________________________________

So is this an illegal alien problem or a moral problem ???


14 posted on 10/22/2010 7:07:52 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Mormons say they live in fear of being jailed or having their children taken away from them.
_________________________________________________

Yeah that imaginary family separation fear due to your own ongoing criminal action is a doozy...

Just ask the illegal aliens...


15 posted on 10/22/2010 7:14:40 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

So, if polygamy is legalized, she wants money for education programs for polygamous women “tailored to our needs.”
____________________________________________________

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

the DREAM Act..

It seems their sex crimes reporter was out sick...

and the “immigration” reporter was having a slow day...

He or she just tweeked an old article of his or her own...


16 posted on 10/22/2010 7:18:36 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

I guess the Mormon god is not omniscient and sovereign and has trouble gauging these kinds of things, eh?
_____________________________________________

The mormon god did not “follow the prophet”

so no temple recommend for him...


17 posted on 10/22/2010 7:23:57 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

How can anyone be for same sex marriage and against Polygamy?

Certainly the one is more natural than the other.


18 posted on 10/22/2010 7:24:04 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
The following represents only my own personal opinion and in no way implicates any other FReeper whatsoever. Ahem:

THEOCRACY, baby! YEEEEAAAAHHH!!!!!

19 posted on 10/22/2010 7:28:16 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vehitbarekhu vezar`akha kol goyey ha'aretz; `eqev 'asher shama`ta beqoli.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
clear the way for them to set up a distinct society - a theocracy within our secular, liberal democracy.

Isn't the state's enforcement of a monogamous, heterosexual marriage already a form of theocracy?

In a true "liberal democarcy" the people could vote for whatever they want, and the majority would rule. E.g., they would have the power to authorize polygamous zones within the state if they so wished.

Perhaps the claim of "secular, liberal democracy" by the paper is simply overblown rhetoric.

20 posted on 10/22/2010 7:38:45 AM PDT by topcat54 ("Don't whine to me. It's all Darby's fault.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; wagglebee
It won’t be done for Mormons, it will be done for Muslims.

Sadly, I think you're right. We will get that theocracy under the guise of political correctness and freedom of religion.

The islamists are just biding their time. This is why we, and they, CAN'T let polygamy be legalized under any circumstances. Not to mention the moral breakdown of society.

Reading the article, I also noticed that they want handouts to support them from the very government they reject. They whine about the low wages that come with the area they CHOOSE to live in.

Well, ladies, suck it up. If you want to live like gods, wait til you're dead. Just don't expect the rest of society to support you in the manner in which you'd like. I'm not here to hand you my hard earned money so you can live high on the hog.

21 posted on 10/22/2010 7:43:09 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

clear the way for them to set up a distinct society - a theocracy within our secular, liberal democracy.
______________________________________________________

The Utah Territory was at one time a theocracy...and a dictatorship..

The SLC mormons moved out of the United States and away from the jurisdiction of established laws so they would not have to “live in fear of being jailed or having their children taken away from them” for polygamy...


22 posted on 10/22/2010 7:50:28 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Sez the Polig:
In another affidavit, a woman identified as Witness No. 2 complains that Revenue Canada has cut back child-tax benefits to some plural wives. It says they are living common-law and must claim the income of the father of their child, regardless of whether others are already claiming it.

“This has been a real hardship,” she says.

Just another welfare sow squealing that she wants the rest of the public to pay for her bastards.

Religion is not the issue, cash flow seems to be.

She wants public cash to flow to her so she can live as a slut but a “religiously protected” slut.

Sorry, gotta call Bravo Sierra on that welfare sow.


23 posted on 10/22/2010 7:54:17 AM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Isn't the state's enforcement of a monogamous, heterosexual marriage already a form of theocracy?

No. Since the state has a vested interest in marriage (i.e. it winds up paying for broken homes & polygamyous homes...in the form of welfare, free lunch programs at schools, free breakfast programs at schools, and in a myriad of other ways...then it has a right to standardize what is ALREADY been recognized in our culture for hundreds of years).

Go to Hilsdale UT and its twin community, Colorado City, AZ, to see the impact of polygamy in extracting welfare.

24 posted on 10/22/2010 7:58:44 AM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Colofornian; GladesGuru; wagglebee; bamahead

If they want the government to subsidize their lifestyle and they’re getting money from it, then the government has every right to put restrictions on that money.

The government is not an independent private corporation. The money it has is is money it has essentially extorted from us. It is not theirs to give.

If a man cannot afford to support a family, he has no business getting married. He should not get married expecting someone else to pay for it out of coercion, no matter what the size and how many wives.

For all those religious people and the Mormons who claim that they believe the Bible, it says,.......

1 Timothy 5:8 If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

and.....

2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”


25 posted on 10/22/2010 8:09:15 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: metmom
If a man cannot afford to support a family, he has no business getting married.

BOOM! Money quote.

26 posted on 10/22/2010 8:30:55 AM PDT by 1forall (America - my home, my land, my country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
What is surprising is that the affidavits are steeped in the myth of persecution.
27 posted on 10/22/2010 9:59:00 AM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
It won’t be done for Mormons, it will be done for Muslims.

Maybe THAT's why Mormons is getting all chummy with Muslims!

28 posted on 10/22/2010 10:02:04 AM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
Religion is not the issue, cash flow seems to be. IS!
29 posted on 10/22/2010 10:04:50 AM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: metmom
If they want the government to subsidize their lifestyle and they’re getting money from it, then the government has every right to put restrictions on that money.

Ahhh...

The Golden Rule!


(He who has the gold; makes the rules.)

30 posted on 10/22/2010 10:06:18 AM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: All

ROFL just when I thought I had read the most over-the-top way to attack the LDS Church I see something even more twisted. The Anti-Mormon gang on FR is just out there... way out there. Obsessed doesn’t truly quite cover it.

Anyone new to this zoo,

If you peruse the Free Republic religion forums you will notice a pattern. There’s an anti-Mormon group of people here that spends a great deal of their time attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They post regurgitated propaganda on an almost daily basis.

They have a misguided obsession. You can witness many different tactics employed that you might find quite interesting. The straw man argument is a big favorite and is frequently preceded by cherry-picking quotes or other material. After the “quotation” the attacker will misrepresent what has been said or what was meant and then attack their own interpretation.

Another favorite is posting scripture or statements which on their own really present no dilemma. They make something out of nothing while never bringing up a single objection that hasn’t been addressed a hundred times before.

Sometimes they cruise the headlines of the day seeking any story that might be twisted into making the Church look bad. Anything will do, just watch the progression of posts following it and see what I mean.

After reading their posts, I invite you to seek the truth about whatever “issue” they seem to be “revealing” or “exposing”. I promise that if you do so with honest intent, the “ahah” moments you will have will be many and frequent. You will start to recognize the tactics employed to cleverly twist and attack and will likely chuckle the more you see. In actuality, there’s nothing new here. It’s all been addressed many times before.

Here’s a few links to get your started from a different viewpoint. I have found that the vast majority of the “issues” brought up can be found and addressed at http://www.fairlds.org/ but here’s more:

http://scriptures.lds.org/
http://www.lds.org
http://www.fairlds.org/
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/index.html
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDS_Intro.shtml
http://www.answeringantimormons.com/index.htm
http://promormon.blogspot.com/


31 posted on 10/22/2010 10:35:57 AM PDT by Paragon Defender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


32 posted on 10/22/2010 10:47:20 AM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Paragon Defender

Now take your haystack to the other thread as well...


33 posted on 10/22/2010 11:09:55 AM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Now take your haystack to the other thread as well...


Hey where’s the big fonts and colors? And some pictures! You know... all that stuff that doesn’t stop your posts from being false. Getting lazy?


34 posted on 10/22/2010 11:13:57 AM PDT by Paragon Defender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Paragon Defender
Paragon's usual spam message....

There’s an anti-Mormon group of people here that spends a great deal of their time attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They post regurgitated propaganda on an almost daily basis. They have an obsession. You can witness many different tactics employed that you might find quite interesting. The strawman argument is a big favorite and is frequently preceded by cherry-picked quotes or other material. After the “quotation” the attacker will misrepresent what has been said or what was meant and then attack their own interpretation.

yeah sure

Link

As of December 31, 2009, there were 51,736 LDS missionaries serving in 344 church missions throughout the world. Their work, often in cooperation with local members, resulted in 280,106 convert baptisms in 2009.[12] Author David Stewart points out that the number of convert baptisms per missionary per year has fallen from a high of 8.03 in 1989 to just 4.67 in 2005.[13] He argues that the number of converts would increase if Mormon missionaries made greater efforts in meeting new people; he points out that the average companionship spends only four or five hours per week attempting to meet new people.[13]

How terrible it is that a handful of Christians post a handful of threads per week on FreeRepublic to counter the proselytizing efforts of the missionaries and public relations campaign of the mormon church. Don't you just feel SO sorry that the poor, persecuted mormons aren't able to have their message heard?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJqhFm2Zpck

How is it that the mormon church feels the need to mount a multi-million dollar ad campaign on the theme of "We're mormons...we're NORMAL"?

35 posted on 10/22/2010 12:00:38 PM PDT by greyfoxx39 (Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39; Paragon Defender
How is it that the mormon church feels the need to mount a multi-million dollar ad campaign on the theme of "We're mormons...we're NORMAL"?

You mean the one the includes the soft core porn photographer as a 'normal' mormon?

36 posted on 10/22/2010 12:23:05 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla
You mean the one the includes the soft core porn photographer as a 'normal' mormon?

Yeah, that's the one.

37 posted on 10/22/2010 12:48:53 PM PDT by greyfoxx39 (Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

>>i.e. it winds up paying for broken homes & polygamous homes...in the form of welfare, free lunch programs at schools, free breakfast programs at schools, and in a myriad of other ways...then it has a right to standardize<<

That is a really dangerous argument to make. Most of those examples, or similar type of examples, are used for controlling lifestyle because of health costs, or affect on other citizens. It’s typical of the liberal line to control more and more.

If you are truly conservative you may want to rethink using that one.


38 posted on 10/22/2010 12:57:44 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Paragon Defender; All; reaganaut; Godzilla; P-Marlowe; greyfoxx39; Tennessee Nana; Elsie; ...
Anyone new to the genealogical zoo,

If you peruse Family Search Centers sponsored by the Mormon church, or various online Web sites, you will notice a pattern. There’s Mormon groups of people here that spend an inordinate amount of their time seeking their dead ancestors -- and yours. They go through the same regurgitated electronic and paper record shuffle daily.

To say they have a misguided obsession just doesn't aptly explain it. I mean, imagine you're part of a group that has less than 10 million active members worldwide...and only a few million that claim active access to your inner sanctum temple. And then, I as your "prophet" tell you that you only have to come up with the names and birth and death records of the billions of people who've ever lived...including pre-Gutenberg times (pre-1456).

And then you have to go into the temple and perform "works" on their behalf that will supposedly "save" them...and often it might involve your teen-age son being part of the process in acting as a "proxy."

You can witness many different tactics employed by Mormons seeking their dead that you might find quite interesting. The straw man proxy baptism is a big favorite (it's a "straw man" because there's really no unbaptized person there in that temple!!!) and is frequently preceded by cherry-picking records from other church denominations and has even included baptizing Jews from concentration camp lists!

Another temple favorite is for Mormons to "marry off" dead spirits in these temples using genealogical information, often times totally bogus historical information! (It's true)

Let me provide you with three examples as to how Mormons have "appended...[the] life history" of numerous individuals, including Jesus Christ, a Roman Catholic priest, and even a Mormon fundamentalist murderer!:

Did you know that these Mormon tactics include "sealing" records (rituals performed in the Mormon temple) -- that:
(a) Jesus is now "married"/sealed to Mary Magdalene, per our zealous Mormon match-makers?
(b) And Father Damien, a RC priest, was also posthumously "sealed" so that he, too, is now "married"
(c) And a fundamentalist Mormon killer who was divorced was posthumously "re-married" to his ex-spouse.

Documentation for all of these Mormon "religious" acts follow @ the end of this post, if you care to take the time to read them.

Prior to the dedication of the San Diego Mormon temple in 1993, local Mormon families were even "given a packet entitled Family Temple Preparation Material. Included in this written material were about seven pages devoted to "true stories" of temple patrons who were visited by the dead. They see dead people?

The Mormon church even includes accounts of supposed dead spirits visiting their leaders in their Sunday School lessons! Source: pp. 1-2 of LDS Sunday School Lesson

Sometimes they cruise the cemeteries of the dead seeking any fingernail remnant of informational DNA from the dead that could eventually be twisted into how, "Look, we've baptized more dead people who will accept the Mormon 'gospel' and become Mormons in the spirit world." Any record morsel will be devoured; just watch the progression of "genealogical research" that's unfolding in the Mormon church and see what I mean.

After looking over the "PR" side of how the Mormon church is presenting information about their genealogical work, I invite you to new threads coming within the next several days to a week -- a continuation of a series I call the Other- World Series -- which, coupled with Halloween, will shriek your socks off re: the Mormon relationship with the dead and the occult. (They see dead people? linked above was one of those articles already posted this month)

****************

Documentation of Claims A/B/C above:

From article documenting (a) above: On May 27, 2010, “Maria Magdelena” was listed in New FamilySearch with her birth date as “1504 Israel,” and death date as “before 1540 Israel.” Both years are likely inventions. Along with “spouse” “Jesus Cristian,” “Maria Magdelena” was baptized and confirmed a member of the LDS Church by proxy on April 8, 2010 in the “Salt Lake City Utah Temple.” She was subjected to initiatory temple ordinances on April 8, 2010; an endowment ceremony on April 9, 2010; and the marriage “sealing” to “Jesus Cristian” on April 9, 2010—all rites were done in the “Salt Lake City Utah Temple.” Mary Magdalene is described in the New Testament as a faithful follower of Jesus. Because the concept of marriage is strongly emphasized in LDS teachings, the notion that a spousal relationship existed between Jesus and Mary Magdalene is common among Mormons—although that belief is not formal LDS doctrine. There is no reliable historical evidence to indicate that Jesus was married—to Mary Magdalene, or anyone else. Source: Jesus Christ was baptized and “sealed” to Mary Magdalene

From column documenting (b) above: "It's blatantly wrong to seal a person who took a vow of celibacy as a Catholic priest and is so revered in his Catholic religion," said Radkey, a former Catholic. Source: Helen Radkey and Salt Lake Tribune strike again

Why is the Lds church playing "matchmaker" post-death with single RC priests? Answer: Lds say single people are shut out of the highest degree of glory in heaven. Therefore, if Father Damien was going to get there, they had to find a way to marry him off -- in the nether world!

This whole religious shenanigans brought this out in a Yahoo Question: Mormons "marry" dead Catholic priest posthumously to a woman he likely never was married to in life. Why?

This whole enterprise is a literal Mormon marriage machine for dead spirits...

From the article documenting (c) above: The LDS Church has disowned Mormon fundamentalists. In sharp contradiction, the LDS temple system systematically validates the plural marriages of dead ex-Mormon polygamists through its marriage sealing rituals. An example of many such individuals is Rulon Clark Allred, who was excommunicated from the LDS Church in 1940 for practicing polygamy...As though killers will share an eternal reward with their victims, Ervil Morrell LeBaron — the Mormon fundamentalist behind the death of Rulon Allred — was sealed by proxy in 2002 to Delfina Salido, from whom he was divorced. Source: Mormon Church Quietly Endorses Polygamous (Afterlife) Marriages of Excommunicated Fundamentalists

We need to understand that Mormons clarify their belief that marriages are forever by saying that applies only to those who reach the highest degree of glory. So Mormons believe murderers need proxy eternal marriage sealings 'cause they represent the highest degree of works-righteousness folks?

39 posted on 10/22/2010 1:34:07 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39; windcliff

It´s Butters!, bump.

The sense of Genesis II:24 is singular, not plural.


40 posted on 10/22/2010 1:34:46 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

I tend to think it would simply lead to further errosion of the family.

I think it would go that way too. The big thing about polygamy, no matter how right or wrong it is, is that the cultural environment doesn’t support it. In case one hasn’t noticed, Muslims have to do secret marriages in Europe and the U.S., with their “virtual wives” pretty much being treated as mistresses, and the Fundamentalist Groups live off in compounds. Come to think of it, I don’t think they even vote or take part in the political process, save demand welfare dollars. Christianity is about respecting and living within the Law of the Land, (Romans 13: 1-2) God does not want anarchy on the Earth, even degrees of repressive government are better than having everyone fend for themselves. Should someone try and flame me with the law requiring someone “to deny God, or deny that Jesus is the Christ”, this is the exception and not the rule. People should be willing to respect our rules on mongamy, regardless of which religion you are. Most religions can give this up if they had it, as far as I can tell, and if they are really that hinged on polygamy, let them face the test of living in society with everyone else, or pay for their polygamous wives and children out of their own pocket, or be punished for neglect if they don’t.


41 posted on 10/22/2010 1:49:02 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Don’t count what I say as more than heresay, but from my discussion with a Mormon Church member in New York, the argument was that even Mormons could go to hell, but somehow people couldn’t be judged by God without some sort of proxy ordinance. Wierd, but I think most of our religions do believe in leaving the judgement up to God in some way or another. I don’t think proxy ordinances are needed though, something that really sets me apart from them. I think God can carry out the judgement on his own as to how worthy of heaven or hell one was in this life.


42 posted on 10/22/2010 1:53:43 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

And dont forget Adolf Hitler who has had so many dead dunkings and mormon endowements and ordinances done for him by the mormons that he is now “worthy” and entitled to go to the mormon”celestial kingdom” with Joey Smith, Briggie Young, Goro Hinckley and Tommy Munson...

and dont lets forget Williard Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck who get to pal around with Hitler also...

Thats if those 2 are “worthy” too...

Plus theres Vlad the Impaler and Josef Stalin and Lenin and Judas waiting for all the mormon guys to get there...

Then its on...

PARTY !!!!

:)


43 posted on 10/22/2010 2:57:48 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

And also dont forget we already have our first mormon president...

Barry’s Momma, Stanley Ann Dunham has been well dead dunked, plus the endowments and ordinances to make her a mormon...

all done by June 2008...The mormon god knew that her only son was going to be POTUS...

Plus Stan Ann was “sealed” to her children...that means her kids are now mormons too...

So now..

We do have a mormon president...

And a black one at that...

Somewhere Joey Smith and Briggie Young and John Taylor et al are smiling..

and I just know Williard Mitt Romney has been crying with joy since Nov 2008...

And wouldnt dare run against a fellow worthy anointed priesthood holder mormon for the office of president...

How apostate would that be ???

:):):)


44 posted on 10/22/2010 3:06:14 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009
Wierd, but I think most of our religions do believe in leaving the judgement up to God in some way or another.

May I be so bold as to suggest that perhaps you misunderstand the Christian gospel?

Do you realize right after John 3:16...comes these two verses: 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. (John 3:18-19)

IOW, God already has judged our sin. The verdict has already been rendered...and the punishment was taken out upon Christ on the cross.

That's the Christian gospel: That we don't have to to wonder about our eventual destination. 1 John 5:11-13 also expresses how one can have assurance of salvation. (And in John 3:36 and 5:24, Jesus expresses eternal life as something we have -- present tense -- not will have...future tense).

I don’t think proxy ordinances are needed though, something that really sets me apart from them. I think God can carry out the judgement on his own as to how worthy of heaven or hell one was in this life.

We need to ask ourselves: What is the basis of whether or how God will forgive our personal sins?

I think we tend to "miss the boat" in misunderstanding two dimensions of judgment: One dimension is our sin nature and our individual acts of sin--including our sins of omission. The other dimension is our works.

We can't exchange the two. For our sin, Heavenly Father fully judged Jesus on the cross (as I said; this is past tense). When Jesus said "It is finished" on the cross, He used a phrase that in His day was a financial phrase meaning, "paid in full." Our debt -- our sin -- was paid in full. If we try to pay for our sin/atonement, Heavenly Father rejects it as being laced with unrighteousness (Is. 64:6).

And as Judge, both the Father and Jesus could claim, “that's double jeopardy” if we try to pay for what Jesus already paid for on the cross.

But when people talk about God judging the stewardship of our works in the future, they are correct. Note this passage:

By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's WORK. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; HE HIMSELF WILL BE SAVED, but only as one escaping through the flames. (1 Cor. 3:10-15)

Do we see that last sentence? Even if our work is burned up, we can "suffer loss" in heaven -- yet, Paul assures us that "he himself WILL BE saved." (Paul goes on to describe that like somebody pulled out of a burning building at the last second...by Jesus Christ the Deliverer and Rescuer).

So, our works will get quite a "grilling" of judgment from God -- future tense. But Paul makes it clear in this passage that even when our measured works burn up as nothing -- as God's fiery judgment takes a match to them like fuel, we ourselves "will still be saved." (1 Cor. 3:15)

So the righteousness of Jesus is our free pass into heaven. (1 Cor. 1:30). Entrust your life to Him (that is more than just mouthing a few words). But simultaneously, be prepared that once you get there based solely upon your faith in Christ, that He will take a fine-toothcomb to our works -- and judge them. And that it's possible to still become saved -- and still "suffer loss." (None of us should want to suffer such loss in heaven -- whatever that turns out to be)

If anybody's shooting for trying to show God how "worthy" they are, they are worshiping the wrong God. (The word "worthy" is tied to "worship"; and we are not to either worship or "worthship" ourselves). Our value and worth was shown by Jesus at the cross. He died for us. We are only "worthy" in Him. 'Tis NONE of it is of ourselves.

On top of that, Jesus says we need to be perfect (Matt. 5:48). And if we break one part of the law, we are guilty of all of it (book of James). Therefore we fall short. Our self-worth is never enough. Our only hope is to have our sin be judged according to the perfection of Jesus Christ, which is substituted on our behalf. That's why Paul says Jesus is OUR Righteousness. (1 Cor. 1:30)

45 posted on 10/22/2010 3:09:47 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Paragon Defender
Now take your haystack to the other thread as well...

I see you obeyed me; NOW your getting somewhere.

46 posted on 10/22/2010 4:44:40 PM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; Colofornian

The government only gets its money through taxes. If you want government subsidies, you should be prepared to take government restrictions.

If you don’t want government interference, don’t take the hand outs.


47 posted on 10/22/2010 7:21:14 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

But what about my statement that “proxy ordinances” (their words) are unneccessary? That was my primary point in the post.

As far as most of what I read in this post here, I don’t understand how there is not judgement in the hands of God. It’s not a simple guilty/innocent verdict here, sure. But it is a verdict which reads “Is this imperfect (has sinned, haven’t we all) man/woman worthy of favorably entering the kingdom of God? Now Jesus must answer for our sins for a favorable judgement, because we accepted him and his atoning sacrifice, we can’t make it without his grace thanks to our nature. You further proved my point that God is in the business of handling who is saved/condemned.

As far as my primary argument here, that proxy ordinances ARE NOT NECCESSARY, because God is the handler of the business of people’s salvation/condemnation?

My answer is no, and you could have answered no, making the answer fairly simple.

I understand your concern that perhaps they might convert me, but looking at 200,000 + as another poster pointed out, and comparing that to almost 7 billion people worldwide, that’s not much of the world’s population, especially when you figure that like most other religions, you have converts that don’t stay members of that faith for very long.


48 posted on 10/22/2010 7:25:37 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

How is President Barack Hussein Obama a Mormon, if that’s who you are suggesting? Perhaps I didn’t get the joke, if that’s what you intended it to be.

As far as Mitt Romney goes, the guy is a RINO, who I wouldn’t trust to take the proper stand against universal healthcare, among other things, I don’t care if it’s John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, or Mitt Romney, they’re all part of the same club, and none of them belong in the oval office.


49 posted on 10/22/2010 7:29:50 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

How is President Barack Hussein Obama a Mormon, if that’s who you are suggesting? Perhaps I didn’t get the joke, if that’s what you intended it to be.


A lot of what she says is so out there. I usually just shake my head and grimace confusedly.

If dogs could read they’d probably do that funny move where they close their mouth and tilt their head in confusion.


50 posted on 10/22/2010 8:23:51 PM PDT by Paragon Defender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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