Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Recommended Posts

When the Baptist buses came rolling up behind the police cars it took on a whole new aura.

That was the event that told me exactly who was pulling the strings in that whole sordid affair. Yet, not a single reporter mentioned how odd that was and who was the individual who invited them or were they so much a part of the deal that there was no invitation needed! I have no admiration for their leader, but the presence of that Baptist bus turned me against the entire silly attack on a religious people. It also was so completely stupid that because there was a bed in their temple it had to be used to immediately consummate the marriage in the temple....who dreams up this drivel. That First Baptist preacher must have had sermons aplenty after that attack on their community.

Link to comment

I think the SLC discussion is old news and doesn't fairly discuss what we know. In the last few months it has been reported that FLDS has excommunicated many families, perhaps so many that it no longer has the power to control the communities and physically drive out people who disagree in Short Creek. Further, the governments of those towns have been accused of misconduct, including significant surveillance of all areas of the town, except that of homes for Warren Jeff's family.

A second church has gotten bigger, though not without fear and repercussion, and the leader of that faction, who won a huge settlement against flds and warren jeffs, just got the warren jeffs compound at auction, in partial judgment.

All of the places identified in the SLC report already had congregations of flds. So it isn't like new areas are being settled.

Yes it is a hard time for those who've been kicked out and those who have been required to do extraordinary things to "prove" their continuing fealty to Jeffs. And of course there is physical disruption because of that. But it could also be groups deciding they need to go someone further away from the easy access to Jeff's orders.

A second church?

Link to comment

Personally as long as it is between consenting adults(over 18 years old), as long as I don't have to pay for it. I don't give a rats behind how many wives, or husbands someone has.

I would agree up until it is taught to practice in the name of God. When someone does that they're taking God's name in vain, this is what that commandment meant.
Link to comment

It's probably tied to the fact that they wrote a piece a few years back about them that highlighted their racist teachings among other things and for the fact that they list them as a hate group.

Yes, the raid was seriously poorly handled....and the book that I think your talking about sounds a little excessive. I tend to believe people's stories until proven otherwise, but some of her accounts (what I've heard of them, at least) sound like more of the problem of being in a dysfunction family than a dysfunctional religious. I'm usually skeptical....but it's the many many many other reports that are leaking out or coming out, especially lately, that's leading to more and more skepticism. They're a group that wants to be left alone, but they're also a group that is doing things that are morally questionable at best as well. Doing such lends credence to the fact that they probably shouldn't be left entirely to their desires.

With luv,

BD

There are lots of families that are dysfunctional, yet they manage to hide it for various reasons. Some women, or their husbands put up with disgraceful conduct from their partners. Some do it for religous reasons, others because they think themselves too repulsive to ever attract another mate.

Even if the wives are all suitably close in age to their "Master", there are things that can still go on to sour the whole situation.

Link to comment

There are lots of families that are dysfunctional, yet they manage to hide it for various reasons. Some women, or their husbands put up with disgraceful conduct from their partners. Some do it for religous reasons, others because they think themselves too repulsive to ever attract another mate.

Even if the wives are all suitably close in age to their "Master", there are things that can still go on to sour the whole situation.

Wow, if the wives refer to their husbands as "master", I would guess in America the relationship has already gone sour. Somehow I never managed to link up with a gal like that, might have been refreshing. Course I kept looking for one of those mythical meek and submissive Mormon women and never found one of them either...sigh.

Link to comment

Wow, if the wives refer to their husbands as "master", I would guess in America the relationship has already gone sour. Somehow I never managed to link up with a gal like that, might have been refreshing. Course I kept looking for one of those mythical meek and submissive Mormon women and never found one of them either...sigh.

Before I was Mormon, the story was like that. I have never met one. either

Link to comment

... plus the kicking out of boys in their teens...

Especially if they are intentionally depriving them of a decent education or one that has value for them in the 'outside world'. One wonders what kind of culture allows fathers to do that to their sons.
Link to comment

I would agree up until it is taught to practice in the name of God. When someone does that they're taking God's name in vain, this is what that commandment meant.

So you believe the levirate marriage given in the Bible is taking the Lord's name in vain because it is taught as a practice commanded by God? (just asking for clarification)
Link to comment

So you believe the levirate marriage given in the Bible is taking the Lord's name in vain because it is taught as a practice commanded by God?

Wasn't it more or less commanded in a specific case primarily to take care of a widow and carry on the family name? Not a commandment of, be damned if you don't live it, there's a big difference. It wasn't a commandment to live polygamy, where does it say the brother has to already be married? Plus, if this is all there is to back up polygamy, that's not much. Just like one scripture in the bible about a man lying with another. Not much in the bible about that either. Plus, is their salvation on the line if they don't marry in the Levirate marriage? It's just not a good comparison.
Link to comment

Yes, a lot of the former followers of Jeffs have been purged from FLDS and/or left, and now go to church with Willie Jessop's church (though I haven't heard that it is an actual legally established type of church).

Link to comment

Hello TSS...

The trouble is... a good many if not most of these girls being given in marriage are under 18... many 14 - 16 and married off to older men (meaning in their 40's, which isn't that old except in the context of taking young girls as brides... yet some men are in 50's and 60's). That, and the oppressive nature of their lifestyle... plus the kicking out of boys in their teens... puts a little different aspect to it than just "consenting adults." How many of the young girls really consent personally to marrying an older man... or are simply obeying whatever adult is responsible for them. How many are really thrilled about marrying a man 40 - 60 years old?

The special that Lisa Ling did on polygamy centered on the Colorado City group, and they were still marrying under 18 girls to older men.

GG

I quite agree. That is why I was specific in my statements. If they are violating the law then they are answerable to the law. But not for what they believe. IE; We believe in polygamy. Just not in its earthly practice. The law has no say in what we believe, just in what we do in this life.

I don't see where a 18 year old has much in common with 24 year old. Let alone a 40 year old. Both are legal. The life experiences are just too different. OTOH if a 90 year old and a 80 year old want to marry. If they can make it work more power to them. :)

Parents are legally obligated to financially support their minor children. As a parent myself I have and will continue to support my adult children in whatever way I can. Even if not legally required to do so.

Link to comment

Wasn't it more or less commanded in a specific case primarily to take care of a widow and carry on the family name? Not a commandment of, be damned if you don't live it, there's a big difference.

Well, Onan was killed by the Lord apparently for refusing to impregnate his late brother's wife because any child born would not be his own heir...
Link to comment

I would agree up until it is taught to practice in the name of God. When someone does that they're taking God's name in vain, this is what that commandment meant.

Then God can arrest them. We can believe in polygamy all we want. The law in the US is that you can't have more that one living spouse at a time.

Link to comment

I would agree up until it is taught to practice in the name of God. When someone does that they're taking God's name in vain, this is what that commandment meant.

I think that commandment refers to Latter-day Saints who claim to have taken Christ's name upon them but then make little or no effort to follow Him.

Link to comment

Wasn't it more or less commanded in a specific case primarily to take care of a widow and carry on the family name? Not a commandment of, be damned if you don't live it, there's a big difference. It wasn't a commandment to live polygamy, where does it say the brother has to already be married? Plus, if this is all there is to back up polygamy, that's not much. Just like one scripture in the bible about a man lying with another. Not much in the bible about that either. Plus, is their salvation on the line if they don't marry in the Levirate marriage? It's just not a good comparison.

Not so sure about that, not sure exactly how free a man used to be to not take on another wife if the Prophet told him to do so, and from what i can glean from readings (please nobody CFR me on this), it appears from time to time that is exactly what happened.

Link to comment

Well, Onan was killed by the Lord apparently for refusing to impregnate his late brother's wife because any child born would not be his own heir...

But did Onan have a wife? I don't ever like to disagree with you Cal, because I'm wrong 99% of the time. But here I am, biting the bullet.
Link to comment

But did Onan have a wife? I don't ever like to disagree with you Cal, because I'm wrong 99% of the time. But here I am, biting the bullet.

It is not said.

The levirate marriage commandment does not make any statement about married men being allowed off the hook though it does give the process (but not penalty) for a woman to identify a man who refuses to meet his obligation.

Do you assume that there are standard exceptions to commandments such as "thou shalt not murder" or "thou shalt honour thy father and mother" even if such exceptions are not listed along with the commandment?

Link to comment

It is not said.

The levirate marriage commandment does not make any statement about married men being allowed off the hook though it does give the process (but not penalty) for a woman to identify a man who refuses to meet his obligation.

Do you assume that there are standard exceptions to commandments such as "thou shalt not murder" or "thou shalt honour thy father and mother" even if such exceptions are not listed along with the commandment?

Well, are we assuming there is another wife? Besides, it was all about the levirate marriage being a commandment to live "polygamy". That's my biggest beef. Saying God commanded polygamy in the bible isn't really so, IMO, since I thought "polygamy" meant more than one wife. Am I slow, I'm not getting it!!
Link to comment

That was the event that told me exactly who was pulling the strings in that whole sordid affair. Yet, not a single reporter mentioned how odd that was and who was the individual who invited them or were they so much a part of the deal that there was no invitation needed! I have no admiration for their leader, but the presence of that Baptist bus turned me against the entire silly attack on a religious people. It also was so completely stupid that because there was a bed in their temple it had to be used to immediately consummate the marriage in the temple....who dreams up this drivel. That First Baptist preacher must have had sermons aplenty after that attack on their community.

Not to come to the defense of one really bad round up (part of me thinks it's just the Texas way....they're not known for level headed decisions, especially with strange groups). But it was in a very rural, very isolated community. The biggest buildings are often the churches. Often in those areas and with the type of numbers they are transporting, the church buses would have simply been convenient to use.

I do think the general distrust and oddity in a small town of people in really weird clothes/hairstyles, that don't interact with the general community at large, and with very different religious beliefs/practices, that are isolated and fairly secretive, did play a role of course. But I wouldn't put it strongly on the shoulders of the baptist faith. Any group of people would find it difficult to not be weary of such new-comers into their town.

With luv,

BD

Link to comment

Not to come to the defense of one really bad round up (part of me thinks it's just the Texas way....they're not known for level headed decisions, especially with strange groups). But it was in a very rural, very isolated community. The biggest buildings are often the churches. Often in those areas and with the type of numbers they are transporting, the church buses would have simply been convenient to use.

I do think the general distrust and oddity in a small town of people in really weird clothes/hairstyles, that don't interact with the general community at large, and with very different religious beliefs/practices, that are isolated and fairly secretive, did play a role of course. But I wouldn't put it strongly on the shoulders of the baptist faith. Any group of people would find it difficult to not be weary of such new-comers into their town.

With luv,

BD

The Baptist Church could have politely declined to participate. I am sure the authorities could have rounded up enough buses that were government owned(school districts). Somebody in an influential position in the Baptist Church was involved.

FLDS were not all that new to town but probably did not mingle in the community.

Link to comment

The Baptist Church could have politely declined to participate. I am sure the authorities could have rounded up enough buses that were government owned(school districts). Somebody in an influential position in the Baptist Church was involved.

FLDS were not all that new to town but probably did not mingle in the community.

A Baptist Church in Texas politely declining an opportunity like that. .... Lol... Yeah I tend to agree.

Link to comment

I think it maligns the churches who provided buses to believe they did it for bad reasons. The government asked them to help on short notice. They did. Bishops in the lds church wouldn't have asked for the details of the government need. They would have just given the buses. (Now admittedly, the workers who knew enough and decided to CALL the churches were at least culturally insensitive, and may have been showing bias.)

Link to comment

I think it maligns the churches who provided buses to believe they did it for bad reasons. The government asked them to help on short notice. They did. Bishops in the lds church wouldn't have asked for the details of the government need. They would have just given the buses. (Now admittedly, the workers who knew enough and decided to CALL the churches were at least culturally insensitive, and may have been showing bias.)

Oh I don't know about that, if I as a Bishop were asked to involve Church assets in a raid of that nature, I think I would have declined.

Link to comment

I think it maligns the churches who provided buses to believe they did it for bad reasons. The government asked them to help on short notice. They did. Bishops in the lds church wouldn't have asked for the details of the government need. They would have just given the buses. (Now admittedly, the workers who knew enough and decided to CALL the churches were at least culturally insensitive, and may have been showing bias.)

The LDS (Mormon) bishops and stake presidents would have politely declined to be involved.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...