Warren Jeffs FLDS compound in Texas surrounded by police #4

[Spydernweb]

Good question, but I've never read Book of Mormon. Let me do some checking.

From what I saw on the News and searching online, the Book of Mormon does NOT ok Poligamy. The ok on Poligamy came after in the Doctrine and Covenants book, which was written many years AFTER the Book of Mormon. There are 4 main Religious books as it was explained to the LDS and FLDS:

The Holy Bible
The Book of Mormon
The Pearl of Great price
The Doctrines and Covenants

Again the ONLY book that oks Poligamy is the Doctrine and Covenants.

Some people theorize is that Jospeh Smith added the ok on Poligamy section many years AFTER he founded the Religon and as a result of a possible affection for a Lady other then his wife. The Book of Mormon clearly states one wife for one man. I do NOT claim this to be true, just what I saw on a news show and doing some online searching.

JMHO

Hugs,

Spyder

 

[SuziQ]

From what I saw on the News and searching online, the Book of Mormon does NOT ok Poligamy. The ok on Poligamy came after in the Doctrine and Covenants book, which was written many years AFTER the Book of Mormon. There are 4 main Religious books as it was explained to the LDS and FLDS:

The Holy Bible
The Book of Mormon
The Pearl of Great price
The Doctrines and Covenants

Again the ONLY book that oks Poligamy is the Doctrine and Covenants.

Some people theorize is that Jospeh Smith added the ok on Poligamy section many years AFTER he founded the Religon and as a result of a possible affection for a Lady other then his wife. The Book of Mormon clearly states one wife for one man. I do NOT claim this to be true, just what I saw on a news show and doing some online searching.

JMHO

Hugs,

Spyder

Thank you, I'm just reading up more about this and it's fascinating. I'm now understanding that it wasn't Joseph Smith but his apostles that wrote the Doctrine and Covenants after his death, because they wanted to justify their own polygamist practice they had been keeping a secret and Joseph Smith was going to expose and excommunicate them. Sure makes the timing of Josephs Smiths murder suspect. What a bunch of liars and snakes.

 

[SuziQ]

http://www.restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-vol1/chp18.htm

Joseph Smith brought forth the Inspired Version of the Bible and the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. They too support the Book of Mormon's position condemning polygamy. In addition to these Three Standard Books, under Joseph's leadership the following periodicals were produced: the Evening and the Morning Star, the Messenger and Advocate, the Elders' Journal, and the Times and Seasons. A careful reading of these Church papers published during Joseph's lifetime shows that they all support the Book of Mormon's testimony against polygamy. There is not even a faint hint in any Church publication before Joseph's death on June 27, 1844, that polygamy could be right under any condition or circumstance.
*****
Reading up on Joseph Smith's murder is next. I don't know what the accepted theory or motive was behind it. Seems clear to me why he was murdered though.

 

[mollymalone]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4673093&page=1

This is on page 2 of the article:

"Experts told ABC News that women in the cult, which is also known as FLDS, wear as many as three layers of clothing underneath their dresses, including an undergarment they consider holy, three pairs of stockings and sometimes pants. Patterns or bright colors are forbidden — especially red, a color allegedly reserved for God — and any hint of makeup or loose-hanging hair is reason for severe punishment by father or husband.

"They don't want anybody to lust after you," Irene Spencer, 71, a former polygamist wife who wrote a book about her experience and who has several sisters and nieces still living at the Yearning for Zion Ranch, told ABC News. "They used to tell us that if a man saw your elbow it would turn him on."

"We could never wear makeup," Spencer said. "You can't touch that wicked stuff to your face or your lips at all. You can't even have bangs. They're very, very strict." Fears of breaking the group's code of appearance can apparently run deep."

 

[mollymalone]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=4673093&page=4
"of the women's hairstyle, she wrote, "Women need long hair. Our mothers in Heaven have long hair. This was revealed by the Prophets. … Hair left hanging is hot on the neck. … That is why most women braid their hair or put it up in a bun or twist."

"But Jessop dismissed the woman's arguments for practicality out of hand.
"That is bogus," she said. "That is a bunch of baloney that we all got fed. … It's considered adulterous to have your hair down. It's considered like you're trying to entice a man to have sex with you." "She is just reiterating what she was taught," Jessop continued, adding, "Think about how you would feel if you're weighed down with all that clothing. It affects your personality in a very literal way."

 

[SuziQ]

Here is a link to a motherlode of info regarding the Book of Mormon and Polygamy.

http://www.restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm

Polygamy in the Mormon Church did not originate with the Prophet Joseph Smith in Nauvoo in the 1840s, but with Jacob Cochran in Saco, Maine in 1818. Later Day Saint missionaries, including Brigham Young, preached among the Cochranites, and later some of these missionaries became polygamists also. Dr. John C. Bennett practiced his own version of spiritual wifery in Nauvoo, which Joseph the Prophet vigorously opposed. Joseph, who had no plural wives, fought to keep polygamy, in any form, from becoming a doctrine of the Church. But soon after his death, some of the highest Church leaders introduced polygamy as a cardinal doctrine—and conspired to cover their own adulterous crimes by claiming that Joseph received a revelation commanding the practice, and that he had many wives.

 

[mollymalone]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=4673093&page=3

Of all the different garments sown and worn by the women of the Yearning for Zion Ranch, former cult members told ABC News the underwear is the most important. Covering the skin from neck to ankles and wrists, it is worn year-round underneath regular undergarments and said to be symbolic of the clothes that God provided for Adam and Eve to use in the Garden of Eden.

Seen as a kind of spiritual defense, some women don't remove the underwear even in the most intimate of situations. "My grandmother and aunts and some of the people I knew wouldn't even take them off to bathe," said former polygamist Spencer. "They would leave them on one leg and bathe the rest of their body and put them back on."

She added that some women keep the garments on even while giving birth or having intercourse with their husbands."They were told that [the undergarments] were supposed to be a protection and nothing would happen to them if they wore them," Spencer said.


Molly says :chicken:

 

[philamena]

This is such a fascinating read!
Thank you ladies for all your work.

She added that some women keep the garments on even while giving birth or having intercourse with their husbands."They were told that [the undergarments] were supposed to be a protection and nothing would happen to them if they wore them," Spencer said.

:banghead: :banghead: Those poor, poor women!

 

[Glow]

Response to Glowbug from the last page of part 3, of the previous thread.
Sorry hon but 500 years ago has nothing to do with the freakin present and what is happening in tat compound.

I see you called me glowbug. Is that a term of affection or is it because I bug you...?:blowkiss:

I understand what you are saying about how we don't live by what happened 500 years ago. I believe though that the best indicator of the future is the past. I also understand that the FLDS don't live by what is considered "modern day." I believe these people need to change. I just don't agree that "might makes right" is the best way to change them. I think the biggest changes that have every been wrought in the world are the ones that take place when you reach peoples minds and hearts. You wont find productive change anywhere but there. To change a persons views you have to approach them with insight. You have to first understand WHY they do "what" they do.

Lets remove it from FLDS for a moment. Suppose a cruise ship wrecked and the only survivors on a nearby island was a handful of 2 - 4 year old boys and girls. They are too young to have absorbed the culturally appropriate signals from their elders on most topics, including sexual mores. Survival has honed earlier primal instincts that guide them. They eat what they can find. They sleep when it is dark. They get up when the sun shine pierces their eyelids. You get the picture...

At what age do you think that this group of kids will start discovering sex? I think you would agree that it would be when biology kicked in. With no one there to counsel them about waiting till they were more emotionally mature they would just follow the hormonal urges. If you go way back in mankind's history the fact that people got about the business of multiplying as soon as they were capable, is what brought us to the point of having a full planet today.

My point is that setting a law in the books is one thing. What really goes on is another. It used to be a perception that once a girl began her period that she was considered to be of marriageable age. And that puberty is the process of change that takes place as you grow up and become physically mature and capable of having children. Menstruation / periods usually takes place between the ages of 10yo and 16yo. I remember in my little tampon kit that my mom gave me when I started my period there was a glossy pink tri fold insert that began with "So you are a woman now".... that was in 1968. Apparently I had crossed some magic line from girlhood to womanhood.

The problem here is who gets to set the "magic" line. Before 2004 the state of Texas said that magic line was the age of 14. Some feel that date was moved up to counteract this sects settling in Texas. So does that mean if a 14 yr old got pregnant in 2004 we cant prosecute her impregnator now? If she is a 16 yr old with a 2 yr old baby, was that legal then and now its not?


Here are a few random dates from history concerning that "magic line"

Bianca of Savoy, Duchess of Milan was married aged 13yo (1350), and aged 14yo when she gave birth to her eldest son, Giangaleazzo (1351).

Theodora Comnena was aged 13yo when she was married King Baldwin III of Jerusalem (1158).

Agnes of France was 12yo when, widowed, she was married to Andronicus Comnenus, Byzantine Emperor (1182).

St Elizabeth of Portugal was aged 12yo when she was married to King Denis of Portugal and gave birth to three children shortly thereafter.

and here is a famous one I am sure everyone has heard of:

Lucrezia Borgia was married to her first husband aged 13yo and bore a son within a few years.

I personally think that the more mature a woman is before she undertakes a sexual relationship the better. I don't think that the majority of low ranking FLDS are up to speed. I think their current leader has taken advantage of history and biology to mislead them. But I DO understand how he has manipulated the things I mentioned above to lead them to where they are today.

One more interesting note. If you look up the state of Texas teen birth rate of girls aged 13 - 15? It is appalling. Their stats are WORSE than the FLDS's. And they are the ones who are going to "rescue" these children? Really?

 

[Truly]

This is such a fascinating read!
Thank you ladies for all your work.


:banghead: :banghead: Those poor, poor women!

Holy Underwear, Batman! Although I have to admit that it is still confusing, because earlier Suzi told me that the LDS was called The Church of the Special Underwear! So maybe that is one common theme which binds all Mormons together (and keeps them apart in bed lol!). I am so not meaning any disrespect, but I am laughing my head off just thinking about not only making love, but giving birth in the holy underwear?

I have one very serious question: WTF???:crazy: :crazy:

 

[mollymalone]

This is a man's story of leaving the FLDS as a young boy with his brother.

http://poligazette.com/2008/04/17/outside-looking-in/

the Town Sheriff at that time (Sam Barlow) picked up myself and my younger Brother Paul and drove us from Colorado City to my Mothers home in Salt Lake City, Utah – To dispose us as we were “just a bit too spunky to stay in Colorado City”. Paul and I were very popular with kids our age and, looking back, I would have to say we were a “threat” to authority in Colorado City. We both had defied Authority on a couple of occasions and they needed to get rid of us – that is how we got disposed of – we were driven out of town, literally.

 

[SuziQ]

Alright, my eyes are going cross eyed. This is what I've gotten so far in researching the FLDS and the LDS.

First, the Book of Mormon never condoned polygamy. It was renegade fundamentalists that took over the LDS church and wrote polygamy into their doctrine after Joseph Smith died. Brigham Young was one bad dude. About 50 years later, Laws of the U.S. took over and the fundamentalists were ousted and they formed their own sects and the LDS church returned to it's original state. Joseph Smith must have been smiling that day.

ETA: That explains to me why FLDS should not be called mormons because they don't follow the true Book of Mormon, only the renegade ammendment to it.

 

[SuziQ]

Holy Underwear, Batman! Although I have to admit that it is still confusing, because earlier Suzi told me that the LDS was called The Church of the Special Underwear! So maybe that is one common theme which binds all Mormons together (and keeps them apart in bed lol!). I am so not meaning any disrespect, but I am laughing my head off just thinking about not only making love, but giving birth in the holy underwear?

I have one very serious question: WTF???:crazy: :crazy:

Lol, yes they both wear funny underwear. However, when people worldwide joke about the LDS church they say.."you know that church with the funny underwear" Kinda like I've heard Catholics referred to as the church with the funny dresses regarding what the priests wear.

 

[mollymalone]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080418.wpolygamy19/BNStory/International/home

Word that Canadian children were among those before the court audibly rattled Jane Blackmore, a resident of Creston, B.C., in the Kootenays. She had been married to Winston Blackmore, the so-called bishop of Bountiful, who has more than 20 wives. “Warren Jeffs's community is very closed. Even people living in Bountiful don't know who's missing from where,” Ms. Blackmore said in a telephone interview yesterday, struggling to keep her voice calm. “They've been suspecting that. There has been suspicion of that happening.”

But Debbie Palmer, also a former Bountiful wife, said the idea of giving up one's child to the “holy land” was welcomed by those still part of the sect. She cited the example of one of her nieces, who lives in Colorado City.“If Warren Jeffs had decided that one of her children needed to be taken away from her and raised in the Texas compound, well then I know she would have given that child up. In Canada, it's the same thing.”

 

[mollymalone]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080418.wpolygamy19/BNStory/International/home
The phone calls would come at any hour. Warren Jeffs......
would tell the man on the other end of the line to get his daughter ready. He would tell him she'd been hand-selected to live in the “holy land” – Mr. Jeffs's 1,691-acre Yearning for Zion ranch in Eldorado, Tex. – along with the religion's most fervent adherents, whom he referred to as the “heart's core.”A van, he'd say, would be arriving shortly to pick up their daughter.

The southeastern British Columbia town of Bountiful, a polygamous community with ties to the Texas stronghold, always suspected that their children were among those being lured to Zion, just as their U.S. counterparts were. Yesterday, confirmation came.

 

[Glow]

From : http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/About/News/2008/2008-04-18_news.asp

Latest News on Eldorado
News Brief: Friday, April 18, 2008

We are very gratified with today’s decision to keep all the children in temporary state custody because it stops the abuse and keeps all the children safe.
This allows us to keep children safe as we conduct a complete and thorough investigation and provide the physical and mental health services they need.
The children’s safety is our top priority. Our goal is always to reunite children with their parents if we can do so and make sure the child will be safe.
Today’s decision is about the safety of children. It is not a decision about religious freedom. The children will be allowed to worship freely. We respect and value the strong sense of faith these children have. We are not trying to change them; we are trying to keep them safe.
We’ll continue our efforts to identify the biological mother and father of each child, and it is our hope that the parents will work with us to ensure the safety of their children. On Monday, DNA testing will begin for the children and later in the week, testing will be available for the parents.
We’ll begin moving the children into more appropriate placements where we can provide all the services they need while continuing our investigation. We will try to keep children as close to their families as possible so they may see their parents under the conditions outlined by the judge.
Each child will have several people who are looking out for his or her best interests. The children will have court appointed special advocates and attorneys who will monitor their child’s care and progress and report back to the court.
This isn’t the end of the legal process or a final determination on the custody of the children. We will work with the judge, attorneys, special advocates, and hopefully the parents, to make the best decisions we can for the long-term health and safety of the children. We will update the court on the progress of each child's case by June 5.

I'm sure they do feel "gratified". Heck, winning feels good doesn't it?

But are they really qualified to assume responsibility for over 400 young children?

"Putting these kids in the Texas foster care system could prove tragic by any measure."
The state fails federal guidelines in five out of six key categories, including the "absence of abuse while in care," and "timeliness of adoption."

Because many of the children come from families with five or more siblings, officials say it is nearly certain they will have to be separated and placed apart from each other if kept in state care.

http://www.wbko.com/news/headlines/17852469.html

 

[Truly]

Here are a few random dates from history concerning that "magic line"

Bianca of Savoy, Duchess of Milan was married aged 13yo (1350), and aged 14yo when she gave birth to her eldest son, Giangaleazzo (1351).

Theodora Comnena was aged 13yo when she was married King Baldwin III of Jerusalem (1158).

Agnes of France was 12yo when, widowed, she was married to Andronicus Comnenus, Byzantine Emperor (1182).

St Elizabeth of Portugal was aged 12yo when she was married to King Denis of Portugal and gave birth to three children shortly thereafter.

and here is a famous one I am sure everyone has heard of:

Lucrezia Borgia was married to her first husband aged 13yo and bore a son within a few years.

What ripe old age did any of these women live to?

It is apples and oranges to compare a woman's life in the 1100's to a woman's life today.

 

[mollymalone]

What ripe old age did any of these women live to?

It is apples and oranges to compare a woman's life in the 1100's to a woman's life today.

Right, different times, different societal pressures and mores.

 

[Glow]

Report from a task committee formed to address the state of Texas' substandard performance in childcare

Part V. Conclusion
Although many of the problems with the Texas foster care system in 2004 have been
improved, serious problems remain. In particular, the problem of increasing conservatorship
caseloads and inadequate conservator caseworker staffing, which are closely related to the
problem of inadequate funding, are simply getting worse, and the 80th Legislature’s efforts to
address the caseworker and caseload issues were inadequate. Without a continued and much
more significant effort by the state to address these problems, the children in Texas’ foster care system will suffer.

http://www.texasappleseed.net/1HZ601!.pdf

 

[Truly]

Right, different times, different societal pressures and mores.

Precisely. And even more to the point, different laws. There are laws in place protecting children from sexual abuse by adult men. The FLDS and a handful of other freaks can insist all day long that there is nothing wrong with a grown man raping a child. That might have worked in the year 1158, but today the child's rights are protected, and the abuser goes to prison. :behindbar

Glow, in all of your defense of the rights of the FLDS men, and your endless attacks on the government, why have you never once defended the rights of the child?