Tuesday, September 06, 2005

Anyone see CNBC with Ross, Flora, Lost Boys etc Last night

I was flipping channels last night and saw Ross, Flora, Lost Boys, Shurtleff and Mike Watkiss being interviewed. It was interesting to watch - anyone else see it?


Faithful Woman said...

Must have been a re-run. We haven't done any interviews lately.

Anonymous said...

I saw it some time ago. That Watkis is something else. He should hook up with Flora. What a matched pair they are.

Anonymous said...

Well, I am not much of a Watkis fan, but he has done an excellent job on documenting the FLDS in the Polygamy Diaries. If you have access to a high speed internet and a computer that can handle video, I recommend going to the TV station website and watching all the video's. It can take you several days, but if you want to put faces to names, it is a great place to start.

Merycia said...

Are you talking about the Donny Deutsch show? The guy was a jerk. I saw some of a show he did on a high paid hooker who has written a book about her life, and he was all over himself to be understanding of her "lifestyle choice", etc. But he can't do an honest assessment of "polygamy." My problem with Watkiss is that for a long time he failed to understand that the FLDS are not the only polygamists around. He seems to be learning the distinction, finally, and the reports he's done with Centennial Park, for example, have been good.

ATAR_i said...

I really have no idea who the guy was - I came in mid stream and there was no new information so I'm not suprised it's old. How old do you think it was?

I have seen most of his polygamy diaries and it didn't take long at all - they were just short little blips (I have a wide line - so perhaps it's faster?) He did do a good job identifying all the players and explaining the situation.

I think any one who dives into the issue of polgyamy realizes fairly quickly that the 'hot issue' isn't necissarily having plural wives. It's having *adolescent* plural wives, and then of course the issues that spin from that (welfare and lost boys).

Plural marriage suprises me, especially for a group that is quite conservative, but beyond the 'oh my gosh' factor and the 'stop asking the taxpayers to support your lifestyle/religion' factor - I could care less how many women your husbands sleep with.

mugwump said...

It's the child abuse angle that really has me going. I don't agree that plural marriage is a healthy family situation, and I certainly don't practice it but, I agree atar_i, that the practice, other than my previous objections, are minimal.

onthestreet said...

See there. Ya both did it again. Tar's gripe is with God the Father for fathering the Son of God with a 13-year-old (I have posted solid documentation proving the fact). That sets the example, but only for those who know how to leave the girls alone, as the Lord and the Prophets have commanded and carried out. Accuse all you want.

Muggy's gripe, then, is also with God the Father, for "rebuking" and "casting out" and even "destroying" the disobedient of all His children. That also set the example for those who know how to separate the wheat from the tares, and leave the tares to be burned by the Lord as He sees fit. The Lord have mercy on your souls.

ATAR_i said...

Don't try and change the subject.

onthestreet said...

You two named you alleged gripes, being gripers: (1). Adolescent marriages, and (2). Abuse.

Don't try to change the subject. See how yar.

ATAR_i said...

We merely state that if the FLDS change a few hurtful ways in which they treat their children they will receive less/little attention. You can make this about persecution of your religion - but that's not really what it's about.

You could be agnostic, and they would still come after the individuals who perpetuate the issues that are endemic in your previous (since your now not one of them) community.

mugwump said...


You aren't able to produce reputable evidence to back up your off the wall claims. I will not, ever give credit as factual anything penned by Joseph Smith, or any other Mormon Prophet. They claim to speak for God and that is an absolute abominable lie. Do you understand what I just said.
If not, read it again until it penetrates that thick skull of yours.

I'll do you one better and make it simple. Joseph Smith was, is and ever shall be A LIAR. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, and ALL OTHER MORMON PROPHETS ARE and have always been LIARS. Can I make it any simpler or are you just stupid.

ATAR_i said...

But this isn't even about LDS or FLDS or Buhdism or Hinduism or Taoism or any other religion.

It's basically about not hurting your children. Stop the hurtful behavior and everyone will walk away from you.

Anonymous said...

I wonder what Mugwump would do if someone starting persuading him that the Bible was more ridiculous that Greek Mythology.

mugwump said...

Mugwump would quote from Romans 1:17, in part. "The Just Shall live by Faith." This declaration was the impetus that led Martin Luther to lead the Reformation, in opposition to the papacy of Rome.

Not being a Luthern I don't necessarily agree with everything Luther may have said or done but I do admire his courage.

mugwump said...


I might ask you if you had ever really read the Bible, or just elective parts. There is a lot of beautiful poetry, much wisdom, the history of a unique people who have been able to hold together as a group in spite of the world's continous intent to wipe them off the face of the earth. Read it, then pass judgement.

Anonymous said...

Convince a man against his will,
He's of the same opinion still.

Why must people argue about scripture? Do they feel better when they put others down?

It certainly doesn't lift them any higher by doing so.

onthestreet said...

TAR (9/08/2005 3:18 PM): If the FLDS changes its ways, it is no longer the STRAIGHT AND NARROW WAY, but as broad as the world. You can make your crimes about your freedom, but your agnostic and athiestic tendencies enslave you. The individuals who perpetrate abuse in the FLDS are cast out, but in the rest of society they are made into heroes and honored. Today, the proponents of the "gay" and "choice" rights lead America. Your heroes. Those abuses obviously can't be endimic in the FLDS when they continue to be cast out when the wheat is safe from the thrashing.

MUG (9/08/2005 3:25 PM): You will never give credit to Joseph Smith, because you are incapable, and he doesn't depend on you for credit. You speak of the whole "Christian" world as if it is something good and holy. What does the Lord say? "THE DRAGON SHALL DECEIVE THE WHOLE WORLD," so everything you represent is an absolute abominable lie, indeed. Then you get mad, as a juvenile and a mad dog, and SCREAM that everyone but you is a liar, and on that basis (labeling them as liars), assume that you have made it very simple. If they don't bite the muggy worm, then they are "just stupid".

TAR (9/08/2005 3:29 PM): Ahh, stop teaching our children truth and virtue, and you will walk away. We don't want you to walk away. Prod us on, as you continue to rape your spouses and kill your children, and to cover up the crimes blame abuse on a good people that will not accept your sins among them with the least degree of allowance. Thus, you feel abused, but you abuse yourselves daily. Stop the crimes, and the judgements of God against you may begin to let up.

NONNY (9/08/2005 5:01 PM): Mugs is already faced with mythology, and believes it lock, stock, and barrel, hook-line and sinker. Thus, as a swine with a hook in his snout, he's a sinker, not just a little stinker.

MUGS Said (9/08/2005 5:15 PM): "The Just Shall live by Faith". Mugs, what faith or justice is there in promoting the rape of your women, and the slaying of America's children???

9/08/2005 5:53 PM: "I might ask..." Yes, you might. You say: "The Bible is the history of a unique people who have been able to hold together as a group in spite of the world's continous intent..." Are you referring to the FLDS Church? Just as well.

mugwump said...


Who put you down? Is an invitation to check something a threat to you? To your values? I gave you an option. I gave no order to comply. I'm not the judge, thank God. I still invite you to read the Bible, if for nothing else consider it an unique literature.

onthestreet said...

Mugs: Don't just read your bible, EAT IT, digest it, understand it. Even a dog can look at the words of a book.

mugwump said...

I don't recall having run an ad in any periodical, on T.V. or radio applauding rape, incest, child abuse and/or molestation, sodomy, sodomy of a child, abortion, adulterous behavior or any such tripe. Contrary to your uneducated, uninformed, uncultured, untruthful lifestyle you need to know that contrary to your belief that there are millions of citizens of this world who have not now nor ever will bow a knee to the beast, take his mark, or sanction his activities.

There are literally thousands of American towns and neighborhoods where children play knowing that family and neighbors are keeping watch to assist them if they are hurt or need assistance. Millions more attend worship services weekly, they worship the Lord Jesus Christ. The very name that your sect has used as a part of their name since founded by Joseph Smith.

You sit alone, maybe behind a computer keyboard, being constantly bombarded by testimony of a different Jesus. He is different. He is real and not an illusion.

Others in our community may not attend any worship service. Personally, I think that they are missing out on a wonderful, fulfilling spirit of family, of love, of mutual trust and of care. Our church is a family. We are not related genetically but through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the only Begotten Son of God.

Our God is not the creation of a group in Nicea. He, in His Trinity is God, was, and ever will be God. We believe in many ways some of the teachings that Smith chose to quote from the Bible. We believe that the Bible, as originally translated from the most ancient texts is superior to any writings of Joseph Smith or any other heretic.

However, we reject that God is, or ever was a man, that Jesus is the product of a natural union between two human beings. We believe just what is reported in the New Testament, as prophesied in the Old Testament. We believe that God, through His Holy Spirit caused Mary to become impregnated with Jesus. Joseph was told before the babe was born that his name was to be Jesus. When Mary visited her relative Elizabeth and told of the wonderous thing God was doing in her, John, later called the Baptist, lept with joy within his mother, Elizabeth's womb at Mary's announcement.

Every single prophesy regarding Jesus first appearance on Planet Earth was fulfilled. Only those things of future importance are still awaiting the sound of the trumpet to announce His Glorious Appearance.

We believe that those who have demonstrated faith in the unmerited favor God has extended to the world through the birth, life, death, resurection, asscention and the promise of the future return of Jesus is our hope of eternal salvation. We, imperfect though we are, show His work, through us for His Glory.

We are children of God's love.

Not all the earth professes faith in Jesus. Many have never had the opportunity to hear the wonderous story of God's love and sacrifice for man's salvation. Many others have heard and have decided to reject Christ's invitation.

I will not be a judge at the final trumpet. That is Jesus' own task. I'm glad I don't have to do it. But who has the better right to be the judge than the creator of that same individual?

A perfect God, an imperfect people, brought back into God's encircling arms, protected by His enduring love from the wrath that is to come.

A perfect Savior, Jesus Christ, God's son who laid down his life as my sin. I did nothing to deserve this kind of love. It is a gift of God. Why would anyone in their right mind cast that love aside as worthless?

I can't or won't force acceptance upon you. It is your choice.

onthestreet said...

Mug: 9/08/2005 9:00 PM: OMG, he just vomited!

Paragraph 1: Yoohoo, no criminal advertises his crimes. Why are you now so defensive and verbose? Such a LARGE blanket of words will NOT cover up the crimes. They only accentuate them. You attack your Lord in saying that "millions will not bow to the beast, when the Lord says "SATAN SHALL DECEIVE THE WHOLE WORLD" (Rev. 13). Not just millions worship, but billions. BUT WHO DO THEY WORSHIP? Why is there a "CONSUMPTION DECREED UPON ALL NATIONS", by the Lord.

2. As for the Mormon Church using his name, "Many in that day shall proclaim: Have we not proclaimed thy name, and done many works in thy name, and I will say: "DEPART, YE CURSED. I NEVER KNEW YOU".

3. You have only made him an allusion.

4. You have even professed that your church is a "family", yet YOU PROCLAIM NO RELATION among your own church. Some family that is, one not related to each other, which is no family at all. And why? Because it is a false church, not the Lord's. "My people shall be one people, of one seed, and the children of one god."

5. Then YOU FINALLY CONFESS to "believe in many ways" some of what Joseph Smith teaches. You only profess belief while you mock him, the god of this dispensation.

6. You say that you "reject that God is a man". Another proof positive that YOU REJECT THE TRUTH AND ARE DECEIVED. Isn't He called our Father? Isn’t man created in God's image? If that is the case, wouldn't God have arms, legs, hands, etc.. Just because He is a spirit, does that rule out having the form of a man, being in his image. Ex.15:3: "GOD IS A MAN OF WAR. Several times over, God appears in human form, as a man, in the Old Testament (e.g. Genesis 3:8; 18:1-19:1; 32:22-30/Hosea 12:3-5; Numbers 22:22-35; Judges 13:2-23). In fact, in Joshua 5:13-15 the Lord appears to Joshua exactly as Exodus 15:3 says, as a man of war.

And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, A MAN stood opposite him with His sword drawn in His hand. And Joshua went to Him and said to Him, "Are You for us or for our adversaries?" So He said, "No, but as Commander of the army of the Lord I have now come." And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped, and said to Him, "What does my Lord say to His servant?" Then the Commander of the Lord's army said to Joshua, "Take your sandal off your foot, for the place where you stand is holy." And Joshua did so. (Joshua 5:13-15)

Scripture teaches that the Son of GOD IS A MAN, both before the incarnation (Zechariah 6:12; 13:7; John 6:62; 1 Corinthians 15:47; Hebrews 13:8), and after (Acts 7:56; 13:38; Romans 5:15; Hebrews 2:17; 10:12; 1 Timothy 2:5). He is also God (Micah 5:2; John 1:1; 8:58; 1 John 5:20). So, in Jesus Christ we see the truth of Exodus 15:3. The Lord Jesus Christ is a man (1 Timothy 2:5). He is a man of war (Revelation 19:11-21).

Therefore, YOU HAVE REJECTED GOD Himself,the manhood and fatherhood of God Almighty. Just another of MILLIONS of falsehoods that you will have to revise.

7. You mock the Prophet of God over unfulfilled prophecies. THEN YOU CONFESS that prophecies thousands of years old are "still awaiting fulfillment".

8. That's it, Muggy: THOSE WHO HAVE DEMONSTRATED FAITH", and what is faith: "A knowledge of things hoped for, an assurance of things not seen". And how is it demonstrated? By a trial by fire, or persecution, the sacrifice of your possessions and your good name among men, by evil men and demons. Hense, demon-strate. Like you say, they are they who have that hope of Christ and life eternal. "All who live godly in Christ Jesus SHALL SUFFER PERSECUTION."

9. Who then, are the children of God's love, and who are the children of God's wrath? "I the Lord CHASTEN THOSE WHOM I LOVE".

10. You are right, many have HEARD AND REJECTED THE INVITATION. Thus
"Many are called, but few are chosen", and "I have decreed a full end of all nations".

11. (KJV) Do ye not know that the saints will judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? bible.cc/1_corinthians/6-2.htm You are right again, you "are NOT TO BE A JUDGE", by your own confession, not being a saint.

12. Here, you describe the FLDS people again: "A people protected by his enduring love from the wrath, and brought back to God.

13. Christ, God's Son? How is that so, if God is "Not even a man," as you proclaimed in #6 above. YOU CONFESS AGAIN that you have done nothing to deserve that love. For that love is reserved only for the faithful, those who are tried and proven worthy unto the end. Thus "deserving." "Why indeed would you cast is aside as worthless".

Luke 4:14 KJV"And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him ... When we have been tested, tried, and proven true....

14. It is your choice, kid.

onthestreet said...

That was pepto bismo for the vomiting.

ATAR_i said...

No OTS, stop sexualizing your little girls. NO one has the right to sexualize a child in the name of religion.

Stop neglecting your young boys. That's not straight and narrow, thats refusal to take care of a child.

'Let the little children come unto me'

God has a pretty big heart for little kids, and before you so cavalierly hurt them in the name of your religion - you should think twice.

mugwump said...

1. I've never been indicted, tried, or accused except by you. Evidence against me as presented by yo would never last a second in a trail court becuse it is all hearsay.

2. what's your point?

3. It is you that see things, the things tha go "bump" in the night.

4. Relationship was clearly established not physical but spiritual.Non condemning, supportive, give assistance and love. (not to be considered carnal)

5. Acknowledges that Joseph Smith freely copied from the Bible when he could then twist the story so as to fool all you who have never read the Bible in it's entirety but feed only on Smith's perversion.

6. God is not a man, he is Spirit.
The only manifestation of God in Human form was in the person of Jesus Christ.

7. your prophet has no bearing on my relationship to God. At Jesus' death the veil of the temple was rent in twain, from the top to the bottom. Earth's people have direct access to God. No mediator is needed. I can speak to god in my own behalf, as an intercessary in behalf of someone whom I believe to need his hand of healing, salvation etc. HE is omnipitant, omnicientn, and Omnipresent. He is the King, with an attentive ear, and close at hand. HE is not some spook sitting on a cloud nor is he in the form of man. He is not hampered by time, eternity, present, past, or future. He is, was, and shall be. That is why he is God.

7. Unfulfilled prophesy, as related to end-times obviously have yet to appear. End times are nearing but as yet, have not come.

8. So you live with demons. On occasion I believe that they speak in your behalf. No sane individual would assume the judgemental power of God. God's power is His Own.

9. We are God's Children who confess that we are saved by the death, burial, resurection and emminant return of Jesus. That is the promise of the Bible. It's really pretty simple except tho those whose mind and heart have been closed up by satan, who have committed the unpardonaable sin of rejection of the Holy Spirt, who convicts man of sin. You claim to not be a sinner, beware. Your day of grace may very well have past.

10. Your presumtion is that god's grace has been removed an that we are in the last stages of life on earth. Are you sure. According to WJ the end was to occur last April6. How many other deadlines have come and past related to your prophets dire wrning. Blame placed on Jeffs folowers are blamed for the return not occurring because of their sin and the lack of their faith.

God doesn't live by warrens time clock. He will come, and I'll be ready whether I am alive or dead why, because i accepted His promise of eternal life with Him.

11. You are presuming you know God's timetable. Saints will indeed rule the world in promise of the 1000 year reigh of Jesus on planet earth. A group of people who survive the great tribulation will still be alive. They will have not bowed their knee to the Beast, False Prophet of Dragon. Saints will live among them, give training in the things of God, act as artritors and decide upon local challenges. They are filled with the spirit and wisdom of God and will judge as God would judge in a specific incident.

12. You are claiming something that is not yours to claim. Only God will choose and include. Those who have experienced his saving grace are included, any other not.

13. LUKE 1:34-35

34. Then said Mary unto the angel, How can this be? I know not a man" 35. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of God shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
When paternity is declared by the father, it has been, through all time, accepted as fact.

14. My eternal life is guaranteed, not by me, nor upon the whim of aman. I believe that Christ died and arose and lives eternally, I live eternally in Him and he in me.
I shall not be moved.

Anonymous said...

Mugwump and OTS both need a good bitch-slap. Where's Richard Simmons when you need him?

Anonymous said...

Very good comeback Mugwump!


mugwump said...

Frankly, unless one of the gils, women, or children come forth and bring charges, which will allow law enforcement officers to enter and investigate, is ther a think I can do about how they choose to live. As long as ots keeps attacting my life and my hope I will continue to rebut. When he shuts up, so will I.

Merycia said...

You know, I lose interest in these discussions when they become subverted with religious dogmatic finger-pointing. I don't care if someone thinks Joseph Smith is a liar, and someone else worships him as a prophet of God. I think we could acknowledge a differing perspective without getting nasty about it. That notwithstanding, I am curious about a few things.

Onthestreet: I've heard some argue that Mary was 14 when she conceived Jesus Christ, and some of your comments reflect a similar view of this. My question to you is what is your community's doctrine that demands that your members MUST 1) marry by arrangement under the instruction of your "prophet", to whomever he deems appropriate, and 2) marry young?

Allowing that men and women have married at young ages throughout history, does this mean that it is a requirement of God to marry young, or that it is simply permitted by God (and not considered a sin), but not required?

I am not familiar with anything from Mormon theology or early Mormon teachings that either Arranged Marriages, or Young Marriages are required by God in order to live the fulness of the Gospel as taught by Joseph Smith. If the FLDS believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet, I'm curious where they derive these two teachings, especially since onthestreet asserts that if his community departs from these teachings, then they depart from the "STRAIGHT AND NARROW" way.

Do they depart because marrying young is a requirement of God? Or is it because they are not being obedient to the will of their prophet?

mugwump said...


I'll wait for Streets answer. I am curious too.

Men In Black said...

I can't answer for Street, but the FLDS are religiously speaking following the old text as though the old testament, where by the LDS or Mormon or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the new revised or New Testament so to speak. Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon 1830 version did not promote polygamy. When the Pearl of Great Price was published in 1851, Joseph Smith was nearly 7 years deceased and it was reported to be his earlier writings, which in effect had countered parts of his earlier writings in 1830.

In the some what twisted theology, Mr. Smith stated it was wrong to marry sisters and or a mother daughter. Both of which occured in his own relationships. The Partridge sisters are well documented and per this age of 14, Sarah Kimball was 14 and barely shy of her 15th birthday, thus the FLDS might recognize age 14 per or by example of the former prophet.

Many have defended age 12 as the age of Mary and have justified that age as an age of maturity for some young women. When puberty is past and procreation for survival was the rule of the day in less civilized times, such may have occured.

The old testament also spoke of stonings and the death of a prophet who had been wrong only ONCE! I don't believe the faithful wish to hold their leader Warren to a single standard. A double standard however that is selective, one that allows the leader to be wrong, while treating women as chattel and violating child protection laws, better suits some here and is why so many will not recognize this as a bonafide religion.

Those within the LDS faith would be better suited to defer their response to Mike Otterson, spokesman over Dale Bills of the mainstream LDS church.

The doctrine followed by the FLDS is one in the same with the mainstream church, but back dated. There is a history in common, but a present belief that is very different.

Sarah was married in a spiitual and secret ceremony on July 7 1842. Her father Heber C. Kimball started into polygamy with great reluctantcy, but was really involved after the migration to Utah, about 5 years after his daughters marriage. Emily Dow Partridge was married March 4 of 1843, followed by her sister, Eliza M. Partridge on March 8th of the same year, only 4 days later. The sister were young, though not as young as Sarah Kimball.

If you follow the Smith teachings, it does not justify the age, though by example many would assume, what was right for the prophet must be correct. As for the prophet being the only who can perform marriage selection, Smith was adamant about this being so!


onthestreet said...

1. Okay, kids. AS FAR A "FINGER-POINTING" goes: You just ask a few questions, or make CHARGES against the FLDS, so I continue to answer. If you feel "FINGER-POINTED" as a result, don't feel guilty, unless you really are guilty in light of the scriptural truths brought forth. Fair enough? It is not "dogmatic finger-pointing when you bring out scripture directly in answer to the matters REQUESTED BY YOURSELVES. Scripture itself is not dogma. You may reject what else I say about it, but oftentimes you reject and contradict the very scripture itself, from your own Bible. So you need to be honest about that, and not reject things just because they contradict your traditional lifestyle, a lifestyle that often directly violates your own morals and religious canon.

You falsely accused us just now for "WORSHIPPING A PROPHET". There is only one God to worship, and many gods to revere. How so? Well, doesn't trinity suggest three? Yet we don't worship all three. We worship ONE GOD, IN THE NAME OF THE SECOND, BY THE POWER OF THE THIRD. That's very different from worshipping anyone other than the ONE GOD who rules at the head of this human race. The Lord told Adam: I will make you the Head. Not your belief? So what. It is ours. Let that be good enough on that issue. If you cannot let it be good enough, but must slam us for SCRIPTURAL PROOF of our doctrines and way of life, then you are the offender. You become
"NASTY ABOUT IT", like you just now suggested we shouldn't do. YOU CANNOT change what is eternal. Hell, scientists are even trying to take over the moon, and even have their sights on possessing the sun, things belonging only to God, like Babylon who built a tower to reach to heaven. YOU CANNOT DO EITHER. They are not yours, for you violate the process and conditions of heirship. This will answer your first paragraph, Merycia.

2. Marriage by appointment? Our doctrine is this: Marriage is of God, determined by God, consummated by Him, and blessed eternally by Him, FOR TIME AND ALL ETERNITY. You ask: "WHAT DETERMINES THIS"? Do you want both Bible and Mormon Scripture. No, I must restrict you to the Bible, by your own choice. Okay, here is plenty FROM YOUR OWN SCRIPTURE. Believe it, and let this be a good answer, for God is good, and His word. Otherwise, be damned, having PROVEN YOUR INTENT to reject everything that comes from God. Here is YOUR OWN SCRIPTURE:

Where to begin? At the beginning (Genesis 1:27): So God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE, in the image of God created he him; MALE AND FEMALE created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genesis 2:18 ): And the Lord God said, {It is} not good that the man should be alone; I WILL (not man) make him an help mate.

That alone suffices for believers in a certain Prophet as representing God. See, from the very beginning, God who is eternal set up eternal marriage, for it is "after his own image (Male and Female), to be together", and God is eternal. This is a very good beginning from YOUR OWN SCRIPTURE, is it not, and IT BEGINS TO ANSWER YOU: "Why our community's doctrine demands marriage by arrangement", as you put it, for God arranges it eternally, he being eternal. IT IS WHAT PEOPLE'S THE UNIVERSE, WORLDS WITHOUT END, FRUITFULLY (Be fruitful. Trees bear fruit every year). This is WHY THE PROPHETS DIRECT the marriage appointments, as Abraham directed Isaac BY APPOINTMENT (Genesis 24:52): "Go unto my country, and to my kindred, and TAKE A WIFE UNTO MY SON Isaac. See, FROM YOUR OWN SCRIPTURE: Isaac did not do the choosing. This is the law FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END. IE: All of God's true prophets lived by it, mis-interpretations notwithstanding. Even Jesus (called "THE BRIDEGROOM" in the marriage in Cana: John 2:9). And what is Jesus' hallmark: "THY WILL BE DONE IN ALL THINGS, NOT MINE". So, his marriages by appointment, FROM YOUR OWN BIBLE.

Marriage is of God to us, like I just explained it above. Yet you have made it of man, selecting your mates by your own wisdom, usually lack thereof. Then you select any man or woman, anyone who is given some temporary status in Vegas, or in a County recorder, a Judge, a Priest, or simply marry by your own doing ("common-law"), or live together without marrying at all. Thus, your divorse epidemic, your rape epidemic, your abortion epidemic, and your multitude of other sins, UNTIL DEATH DO YOU PART.

Now, how about MARRYING YOUNG (Still on paragraph 2 of your post). This gets even more interesting, and substantial, FROM YOUR OWN WORD. Since this post is pretty dog-on long, I'll spare you for now.

mugwump said...


I thank you for your straight forward and sincere answer. My chief problem with FLDS has been the abuse of children. A man, if he marrys more than one woman won't be the first nor the last to do so. How he treats that woman and children brought to the union is of grave concern. Using women as chattel and the constant lying to cover mistakes and errors in judgement disqualify a man for leadership whether it be political or in an organized church.

Thanmk you for your candor.

onthestreet said...


Men In Black said...

To answer the questions of two religions a past in common, but seperated by the present, the following might be an allie for OTS. More than apostates monitor these message boards. No doubt Warren is having someone watch these boards and to an audience of ONE, OTS may well be demonstrating his faith, against all odds!

Arguing facts, is always met by arguing religion and abuse need not be under that umbrella!

The defense is refered to as "circling the wagons" and it effectively brings those with a common belief together. Pointing blame is a component of the defense and it avoids answering those simple and basic questions. A answer to a question is another question and 2+2 makes 3!

Just keep in mind as I have previously stated there are many reading these boards. The media of course, law enforcement, the FLDS attorneys, those representing both the LDS & FLDS churches and more! I have no doubts as to the audience OTS is playing to and its not you or I!

There are several message boards on a "to monitor" list the Texas Polygamy Blog is one of many.

Taken from http://www.fairlds.org/

Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism
by Daniel C. Peterson

A Message Board Jam-Packed with Angry Apostates
I will pass over very quickly a message board that I like to monitor that is, in its way, a kind of wildlife preserve for secular anti-Mormons. Some of you are probably familiar with it. Although it is of unquestionable sociological and psychological interest, it offers little if anything of intellectual merit. What was once said of William Jennings Bryan could be said of even many of the star posters on this message board: "One could steer a schooner through any part of his argument and never scrape against a fact." Several, even, of the posters with the greatest intellectual pretensions on the board have consistently demonstrated themselves incapable of accurately summarizing Latter-day Saint positions and arguments, let alone of genuinely engaging them. It's hard not to think in this context of Groucho Marx: "From the moment I picked up your book until I laid it down," Groucho wrote to the novelist Sydney Perelman, "I was convulsed with laughter. Someday I intend to read it." Many on this particular message board seem to be of the same mentality as the academic who was asked whether he had read the new book by Professor Jones. "Read it?" he replied. "Why, I haven't even reviewed it yet!"

What the board does offer are displays of bravado, strutting, believers' arguments completely misunderstood and misrepresented, bold challenges hurled out to those who are barred from responding, and guffaws of triumph over enemies who are not permitted to reply. Dissent is rigidly excluded from this board, even as its denizens criticize the Church for its supposed "repressiveness." However, notwithstanding the rigorous exclusion of all troublesome dissent from their domain, the faith these posters have in their own unanswerably brilliant selves is oddly refreshing to see in atheists, whom you wouldn't expect to believe in any God at all.

Voltaire once explained that "My prayer to God is a very short one: 'Oh, Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' God," he said, "has granted it."

But this doesn't exhaust the pleasures of that message board. It is rife with personal abuse and bloodcurdling hostility, not uncommonly obscene, directed against people they don't know and haven't even met--against President Hinckley, Joseph Smith, the Brethren, the general membership of the Church, and even, somewhat obsessively, against one particular rather insignificant BYU professor. Ordinary members of the Church--Morgbots or Morons or Sheeple, in the jargon of the board--are routinely stereotyped as insane, tyrannical, cheap, bigoted, ill-mannered, irrational, sexually repressed, stupid, greedy, foolish, rude, poor tippers, sick, brain-dead, and uncultured. There was once even a thread--and I'm not making this up--devoted to discussing how Mormons noisily slurp their soup in restaurants. Posts frequently lament the stupidity and gullibility of Church leaders, neighbors, parents, spouses, siblings, and even offspring--who may be wholly unaware of the anonymous poster's secret double life of contemptuous disbelief. It is a splendid cyber illustration of the finger pointing and mocking found in the "great and spacious building" of 1 Nephi. Whenever the poisonous culture of the place is criticized, however, its defenders take refuge in the culture of victimhood, deploying a supposed need for therapeutic self-expression as their all-encompassing excuse.

Contemplating a depressing number of the posters on that board, I've thought to myself, "If this is what liberation from the Mormon 'myth' makes you--a vulgar and sometimes duplicitous crank, cackling with malice and spite--then I would prefer to spend the few brief years left to me (before I dissolve into the irreversible and never-ending oblivion many of the board's posters prophecy for me and all humankind) with people who haven't been liberated. I think of the apostates of Ammonihah, mocking Alma and Amulek in prison, "gnashing their teeth upon them, and spitting upon them, and saying: How shall we look when we are damned?"1 Surely the damned will not look much different than this.

But I'm troubled by the capacity even of far less malevolent message boards to supply a supportive sort of ersatz community as an alternative to the fellowship of the Saints, and I worry about what participation on even relatively benign boards does to some Latter-day Saint souls. I have in mind one frequent poster in particular, who claims simply to be doubting and troubled, but who in fact never misses an opportunity for a snide remark about his Church, in which he remains active, and its teachings. These teachings involve weighty matters of utmost import. Millions have placed their hopes in the gospel's message, and, if this were false, it would be tragic and unutterably sad. Perhaps the cynicism that this poster and many others cultivate is no more than a psychologically understandable defensive shell, a self-protective whistling past the graveyard of doubt. But, even so, it is a shell that will, I fear, block the Spirit. I am not optimistic about his long-term prospects, barring a fundamental shift in attitude (and, even less hopefully, perhaps in personality).

Characteristic of much secularizing anti-Mormon participation on the Web is a corrosive cynicism that, in my experience, will erode anything with which it comes in contact. It is not so much a reasoned intellectual stance as an attitude, or even, perhaps, a personality type. Those afflicted with such cynicism are like the dwarfs in the last book of C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia, who are, as Aslan expresses it, so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out. Such people claim to know the price of everything and everyone, but they seem to recognize the value of nothing. But the problem may well be in the cynic rather than in the object of his scorn. "No man," as the French saying goes, "is a hero to his valet."2 Why? The German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel is surely right when he responds: "This is not because the hero is no hero, but because the valet is a valet."3

ATAR_i said...

Thanks Jay and Mercyia

onthestreet said...

Thanks Mr. Peterson.

onthestreet said...

MIB: Me, "Demonstrating faith to an audience of one"?

"To thine own self be true".

mugwump said...


The very simplicity of the Bible and those who believe it to be the only, indisputable, inerrant word of God are not threatened by derogatory reference to the faith of William Jennings Bryan.

A movie was made in the early 1960's staring Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow, and Fredrick March as Bryan. The movie portrayed Darrow as thoughtful and Bryan as all bluster. The tale was wound around the events of the "Scopes Monkey Trial." Bryan was called to the witness stand by Darrow and asked a series of questions about creation, miracles etc. Of course it was the intent of the director and screen writers to make Bryan appear as a pompous fool and to negate any positive witness to the Bible.

As I watched the movie I was impressed by the fact that even though Darrow was able to "shoot" holes in the Bible stories Bryan testified to, he was never able to shake Bryan's faith. That single fact is a perfect example of faith. Although scorned, faith held, though ridculed faith remained, though defamed Bryan held firm to his faith.

That kind of faith is the victory that overcomes the World. What is so hard to recognize is that there are sand-bars and reefs below the surface of the waters of life that pose grave dangers to sailors and ships who have no charts, no sonar, who are being tossed about by wind and waves capable of wrecking the most stable of ships. The example of the forces shown by the recent hurricane are beyond the ability for a rational person to immediately determine just what went wrong and why.

The pen-name of Samual Clements, Mark Twain was reference to measurement of depth of the Mississippi as steamboats plowed it's muddy surface. Running aground was sure death on that treacherous river. It's the simple things and simple people who confound those who profess to be wise. Jesus was born in a manger not a palace. The angels made the announcement to shepherds not to the princes. During his ministry His chief opponents were the intelligencia of Israel. The hungry he fed, the lame he healed, those whom he raised from the dead were simple folk. Why the simple ones? The rulers and professors of that day all worshiped their own god, themselves.

Merycia said...

You didn't read my post very well. First of all, you clearly took my "dogmatic finger-pointing" comment personally. The comment was not intended to say that I don't find religious references or quoting welcome, but I prefer not to move into discussions where dogmatic preaching of religious views refuse to allow that other perspectives might actually be moral and acceptable, even if they are different.

Some of your comments do provide an example of what I'm saying, however. In your response to me, you say: "Marriage is of God to us, like I just explained it above. Yet you have made it of man, selecting your mates by your own wisdom, usually lack thereof..."

My response to you is, WHAT? You feel very comfortable impuning beliefs, actions and motives to me without any real knowledge.

Since I don't know much about you or the FLDS (except what I have read in the papers), I figured I'd ask.

I did not proclaim the Bible to be my only scripture and in any way deny Mormonism. I happen to be an Independent Fundamentalist Mormon. What I do not feel the need to do, however, is spring to a determined defense of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, or the Bible just because someone posts something negative about one of them. Arguing scriptures is not of interest to me.

I AM, on the other hand, curious as to the rationale behind the belief system of your community. I'm not trying to attack you or your beliefs, but I really don't understand where they come from, because I do not recognize any teaching of Joseph Smith's or other early leaders of the church that preach perfect obedience to the prophet, or that the prophet alone could and MUST choose spouses for LDS members. In fact, Joseph Smith taught often that the members should build their own testimony through prayer and personal revelation. This was also a practice of the church, since Joseph's revelations were presented to the body of the church to be voted on. The church always had the right to accept or reject any revelation of Joseph's. Perfect obedience was not expected, though it was taught that in order to receive the blessings of a particular law of God, one must actually obey that law. The choice of whether or not to obey was left to the individual; the blessing to be received was based upon compliance by volition (not coercion).

Re-read my post and see that my language is precise in my questions. I did not ask for proof or evidence to defend the FLDS position, but a better understanding of what that position was, and why.

I do believe in divine revelation, and in personal revelation. I sought it out in the selection of my own spouse, but I didn't look to someone else to get that revelation for me. I believe each and every human being is capable of a personal relationship with God, and of receiving blessings and guidance from Him, regardless of gender, race or religious belief.

Do the FLDS believe that women can receive their own personal revelation? Under what circumstances? Do you and/or the FLDS people believe that all revelation must go through Warren, or can you receive guidance for yourselves individually?

You presume to suggest that non-FLDS marriages are wicked. I assume that is because Warren did not choose our partners for us, nor perform the ceremony or supervise the ones who did. I have been faithfully married to my husband now for 16 years, and there has been no other man, no other husbands. Likewise my husband has remained faithful and kept his covenants.

You refer to divorce, rape and abortion. I would probably, surprisingly, agree with you that the larger society has many unhealthy, dysfunctional relationships and practices; unfortunately, I think that many of those dysfunctionalities and practices also exist in some polygamous families, as they exist anywhere that human beings are. I don't believe polygamy is to blame for these problems; I think co-dependent behaviors are partly to blame, and the insistence of living your life asleep to your own motivations.

I wonder Onthestreet, have the FLDS overcome all these that you have none of them among you? No molestation (rape), no divorce? On average, how many husbands do FLDS women have in a lifetime?

ATAR_i said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ATAR_i said...

You go girl!

mugwump said...

I am concerned by OTS's polytheism. He indicted that the trinity included one god, and illudes to there being many other gods.

My I give you an example of what my simple self sees in the trinity. If I may use myself, not that I am god, nor do I have aspiration to become god, nor will I ever be made a god, or earn a place to be considered a god.

I am a son, I am a father, I am a husband. These three examples given in absolute sincerity are how I may be preceived as being more than one person. Although I appear as three separate individuals, each with a personality that supports a particular role in the life of that party or parties who need to know me best. All three still are one, myself. Is my personality split? No. Just as I understand God as being three, Father, Son and Holy Spirit do my parents preceive me as son, my children as father, and my wife as husband.

Using the same thought pattern my role is expanded: to employees, I am the boss, to nieces and nephews I am uncle, to grandchildren I am grandpa, to life long associates and others whom I have met and established a relationship I am friend, to my siblings I am brother, I am also refered to as brother by those people with whom I worship. In the biolgical aspect I am not their real brother but I am a brother in the faith.

Each man/or woman has multiple tasks in life. To each of those who look to us with differing needs and aspirations we appear as the individual needed to fulfill a particular role in their life.

mugwump said...

Another question comes to mind. The problems associated with polygamy are numerous, and that has been established as a fact.

However, if the practice was leagiized in Utah, Arizona and even in Texas there should be some strictly enforced rules.

No female could marry until the age of 18 and only then if they have graduated high school or received a GED. Second, the marriage should be recorded as a legal union with rights and priviledges afforded to each of the parties subject to the laws of the state. Third, any children born of this union should be registered via a birth certificate placed in the county of residence and the child shall assume the last name of it's father thereby no longer be considered a bastard. Lastly, the father shall provide sustinance, food, shelter, clothing, education, medical care and fatherly love to the children and quiet but obvious love and care for the mother of those children. If he should fail to provide for his family he should be subject to severe criminal prosecution. The woman should not be elegible for federal or state aid unless her husband has died and the cause of death be determined "natural."

Merycia said...


Your explanation of your view of Trinity is fascinating. I have never thought of it that way. In Mormon theology it is taught that the trinity is, indeed, three separate individuals. I have always wondered how other Christians believed about the trinity, but have never had it explained so well.

To your second post: you refer to the problems of polygamy as being a fact that they are numerous. I would take issue with you in one respect: they exist in the same manner in which any problems exist in society. The problems in monogamy are numerous, and that, too, is a fact.

As far as forced licensing or registering of polygamous marriages...I recognize where you are coming from. There would definitely be benefits afforded to plural wives and their children if their marriages were recognized by the state, but from a human rights perspective, I don't agree that these relationships should be "required" to be a legal union. Certainly there are benefits available through the legal sanction of marriage that are not available otherwise, and many people desire those benefits, but no member of the larger society is forced or required to marry legally simply in order to engage in the relationship. The requirement is only there as an incentive to marry legally.

Cohabiting, monogamous couples are not required to marry legally before they can cohabit. Their children are not taken away from them because they have no marriage license.

The reality is that there are no regulations for cohabiting couples, and yet, many of these situations have been proven to swell the welfare rolls and put children at risk of molestation by in-house, revolving boyfriends, etc.

One rationale behind the common law marriage statute is to protect women from the consequences of engaging in a relationship without formal marital recognition by the state.

In concept, I agree with your idea that there should be some requirements met prior to entering into a polygamous marriage, but why shouldn't those requirements be a general standard across the board? (In fact, it would be unConstitutional if it were otherwise.)

Currently, the only requirement in Utah to marry monogamously, with all the blessing and sanctity the state has to offer, is that the parties be 18, or if not 18, have parental consent. (An additional restriction would be that the union cannot be incestuous, homosexual, or polygamous.) There are no other requirements.

They are not required to have finished high school. I'm not sure if there are additional requirements in other states. It seems to me the focus is always age, or restrictions for consanguinity. (Half of U.S. states permit first-cousins to marry, btw.)

Apparently, in Kansas the marriage age is 12! (Refer to recent news about the [monogamous] Nebraska man who got a 13-year-old pregnant, then legally married her, WITH her parents' consent, and is now facing child rape charges in home-state Nebraska for having sex with his now 14-year-old wife. Not one member of the family supports the criminal charges and the girl isn't even in high school yet.)

So, I would support marital requirements but not forced registration of marriages upon anyone simply to engage in a relationship (though my personal value system requires it).

ATAR_i said...

Mercyia interesting - I hadn't realized the LDS view of the trinity was so different. Where does yours come from?

The issue of the girls is a toughie. I always hate legislating to a problem.

It's like the problem of chewing gum. Reasonable kids at school will chew their gum and throw it in the trash, but there is also a huge number of adolescents who have to take that gum and stick it somewhere (under a desk, on the ceiling, floor, locker) so that it makes a nasty mess - and schools are forced to say 'no gum at school'.

Some of these issues are rather like that. Most people are going to insist that their girls not date older men, don't get married in high school etc. Some will let their children behave differently, not a vast majority, but some. It's like gum at Microsoft in Redmond - most of the time it doesn't end up under the desk.

Now we have a specific environment where girls are arranged to be married to old men, when they are still children. This is like the school environment with the gum - happens way to often - something has to be done.

If we tell everyone at Microsoft that they can't chew gum, because the kids at Los Angeles High School are putting gum under the desks it just doesn't make too much sense to everyone else who for the most part hasn't been behaving badly.

I don't think it should be a marriage issue, because that gets too sticky. It should be a child abuse issue.

If a girl is under 18, and the man is much older in the FLDS this is a problem - big nasty problem, happening way to often.

Firstly the issue of consent has popped up, girls feeling compelled, coerced, and forced to marry. Until a girl is at the age of legal consent - her parents are to protect her. This has clearly not happened, so some rules need to be made - strictly for this group of individuals.

Secondly the issue of age regardless of a childs desire to marry. Specifically to this group, girls are encouraged to marry so that they can make it to heaven. So a burning desire to go to heaven fuels a desire to marry a man with many wives. A child desires many things, however, the parents job is to allow their children to dream and desire, but protect them until they are old enough (adult) to make those decisions. This, is not being done. So, in this situation, age limitations need to be placed on children being wed.


mugwump said...


Thank you for your candid assessment of my position in relation to state recognation of polygamous relationships.

My first concern is again for the child. Unless the child's father's name appears on the birth certificate the child is branded bastard.

I understand that there are those relationships that don't pass the test of time. They are frivolous
attachments and would be, under intrepetation of the Bible be considered fornication. However, if a child in concieved as the result of this contact, the child wasn't responsible for his being. The two who engaged in sexual activity without the sanction of marriage share the responsibility not the child. The child's father should pay a penalty for his carelessness and lust. Is it too much to ask that a father pay for the rearing of his own child? I think not. Had I fathered a child out of wedlock I would suffer from guilt, as indeed a good fiend did, until death. I would have accepted the consequences associated with being father when I flippantly engaged in a moment of lust with a female, not my wife.

The society in to which I was born believes and strongly advocates that giving birth to children out of wedlock is sin. That is why so many abomnible abortions take place. Abortion has taken responsability out of the sexual attraction of men and women. Sin is sin, whether it is abortion or abandonment.

Children have an inborn need to have two parents, each of whom love each other and demonstrate that love in the presence of the children. I don't mean that they should invite the children into their bedchamber to witness sexual behavior but, kindness, a gentle kiss, a little tease, a generous hug. All these can help the child to understand that their birth resulted from trust, admeration, love and care. That they, the children, were not the result of a thoughtless romp in the hay but the joining together of two individuals who loved each other and show that same kind of love to the children. Single parent children don't have that security. If for no other reason I still feel that if a man and a woman desire to create children, or romp in the hay, they should have a responsability to the child conceived of that union. He/she deserve to know their parentage. When in a mixture of children from monogamous families mix with children of a polygamous family, why should the poly child be held in ridicule for what their parents did? The child should be ready to tell who their father is and should share his last name, and do so with a sense of pride.

onthestreet said...

Oh yah, when criminals strut about hunting down fathers so they can ROB THE CHILDREN of their most beloved pal and hero and protector. You don't know a thing you're talking about.

Anonymous said...

Where have all our hero's gone?
Why Nathan hale rode for liberty,
And Betsy Ross, flew the flag for me.
Where have all our hero's gone?
And the tax has been heaped, along.
Where have all our hero's gone?
That carved the roads and built the City. Where have all our hero's gone?
And the Little drummer boy; Where is his song?
Can it be, that freedom was buried along with them? where is the Pine tree's tall, where a boy can climb? Where is a stream, where a boy can fish with out a fine?
Oh, Where have all out hero's gone?
I tell you this: I walk for him. I shall walk agian. I shall sing for him, and sing again. I walked for liberty, and he did give it unto me. Where have all our hero's gone? And where is the echo of the song? I am from five generations of Faithful fundimental mormon's. I am not ashamed of my heritage. I hold my Flag for all to see. I speak this in the land of liberty. If you hate me, that is your Debt. If you kill me, there is another grave yet. If I live, I shall walk with him. If I die, I shall walk with them. The Hero's of yesterday. Like Joseph I was sold, and I carried no crime. Tho, you hunt him too, I shall walk again. I say, good country men; What flag do you fly, upon the land. The beggar's pittance or the rich man's traitor law? You fight over land like vulture's, and carry the battle cry. And the government hold's your trumpet. We shall sing the National Anthum and stand upon our land. We will stand with the man who has the right to lead us. Imposters and traitors have no claim upon our soil. And the government is losing across the sea. Where have all the hero's gone, that gave liberty to you?
This is the land of Liberty;
And liberty's are few, and only if you pay a fine. And cop's are cop's not peace makers on tax time. And crimnal's walk free, and God does hear the women's cry. He does hear the oppressed. He does hear the inacent; Peace be still, as they do to you, they did to me. And your crown will be like mine. I will walk with him, My Lord; upon his land. And traitor's will hold God's word. He gave you all, and you tried to rob him. And soil, is but sand. Left to blow upon the wind. And the hour is closed and you walk the heaven's. And who gave liberty to you? Who gave you land? Who gave you breath? And you fight your country man? With Liberty and the the fine?
And they write another bible in the heaven's...."In that hour, the Lord did give: greatest blessings on there head......They fought and squabbled like begger's....not seeing.....his gift was hid....The sun rose...the sun set....and the battle was not over yet........Where have all our hero's gone?

mugwump said...

I think you've played your last card street, and was a duce. We've got you figured out.

You are the product of a polygamist family that gave you no care, no comfort, little support. You attended Alta Academy and there were introduced to homosexual acts. In an effort to belong, you fantacize about a life long relationship with your idol, your sodomite friend, Warren Jeffs.

Your attraction to this perverted person has clouded your ability to reason. Your fights of fantasy lead you to heights of eros and into the pit of Hell. You belong nowhere. You have no friends. Your family has disowned you. Out of disgust your prophet has cast you out.

You are more to be pityed than censured. More to be helped than dispised.

Seek professional help, now, your mental health is deteriorating at a rapid rate.

Anonymous said...

Make no mistake! As you wage this war; God is our defender still. We seek not the feeble things you do. Where Gold will sell a friend or two. We stand with our Lord. And we stand firmly too. You are the one's who fight the fight. You are the one's who wage the war. We await the Second coming of Christ. He has never forsaken the rightouse. We need not your pity. WE need not your censure. We need not your help or your despise. Your professional's and your mental health is deteriorated. In life or death, we serve our Lord.

Merycia said...

Atar_i and Mugwump, I very much agree with your comments. Mugwump, the picture you paint of a loving, responsible father is the ideal that I'm sure a great many children long for, due to the large number of single mothers in society. Divorce makes it very difficult for fathers to be as devoted, attentive and consistently present in their children's lives.

Polygamy can do the same, depending on the functionality of the family, the number and ages of the children, and the geographic arrangement of the members. Monogamy does not, unfortunately, guarantee responsible fathers in the home, but again, I do think that what you suggest is the ideal. I personally enjoy those qualities in the man I chose to father my children.

Since I was a second wife to my husband, there could have been a question as to what name my children would be given on their birth certificates (they do have them), but there never was never a doubt as to what we would do. They are his children and he has always claimed them (as he has always claimed me).

A friend of mine shared with me the trauma of having her father arrested for polygamy (cohabitation) during the 1953 raid. He was an independent, and was arrested for nothing more than cohabitation. He didn't marry underage girls, or abuse children. The only time her family used public assistance was while he was in prison. She says that as a child, she had a hard time accepting that this was a land of the "free" while her father served time in prison BECAUSE HE ACKNOWLEDGED her, her mother and her siblings as his family, his responsibility.

Atar_i, I don't like legislating to problems either, mainly because I believe that the freedoms we legislate away are almost impossible to get back, and often have far-reaching impacts that many times are unforseen initially.

Your point is well taken, though, and currently, it appears to be the approach Mark Shurtleff and Terry Goddard are taking. They're going straight to the "abuses", and the protection of minors and children. I have an appreciation for their position because I believe the child protection laws are good laws that serve a valid, significant purpose.

If the FLDS people are sincere in their religious conviction, and I want to give them the benefit of the doubt (even if I have a hard time granting that same benefit to Warren), I still can't understand why they can't wait a few years. Would the women up and leave en masse if they were older and wiser before they married?

Those polygamists who are determined to continue to marry minors or commit other abuses, are going to ultimately come face to face with the law. Since the FLDS are unwilling to budge in their determination to continue to arrange marriages to minors, they will end up facing the consequences of their actions, and will have to test the law in the courts.

As far as my view of the trinity: I view the trinity to be the "godhead",
which in Mormon theology is comprised of three separate and distinct individuals, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Now some of this has evolved in the mainstream LDS Church over the last 100 years, so I can't speak to what is now taught to the current members, though I believe the mainstream church still teaches that the godhead are separate beings.

Merycia said...

Onthestreet, I find it interesting that you chose to completely ignore my questions. Should I take this to mean that you really don't have an answer?

Paladin for Truth said...

Merycia, if Warren was to let the girls get older, that is exactly what they would do, he has to marry them young, if they get to be 18-19-20, they will start to think for themselves, they will realize that Warren is nothing like the previous leaders and these girls will not let Warren have anything to do with getting them married.
The previous leaders of the FLDS would wait until the girls were older. He also would not marry any girl that did not come to him and tell him that she was ready to be married and wanted him to marry her to whom the Lord wanted. The previous brethren were very understanding and kind to the girls, helping them choose for themselves, what they wanted to do to start their married lives and families. All of this changed when Rulon had his stroke in '98 and Warren took over. The marriage age went lower, like to 15, girls were being married that were not ready and did not want to be married. Girls became scared because before many did not have to worry about being married young, they had not even gone and "turned themselves in". That safety in the minds of the girls was stripped away by Warren. Many, many girls in Short Creek are 14-15-16 and very scared and worried, they don't like Warren's marriage system, they don't like their new fathers, they are scared to death of having to marry their new fathers or new brothers. These girls want to get married they way their parents and grandparents were. Other girls can't even find their fathers, they are away on holy missions. Most of this could be solved if Warren would just make peace with the law, show the people some love and commpassion and treat the girls like fellow human beings, instead of possessions.
OTS, has no answer because all can see this. Before Rulon's death he said in meeting on Sunday to obey the law of the land, meaning to stop marrying girls young. This was when Rodney Holm was in trouble for having children with a 16 year old girl as his third wife.

All of the trouble that the FLDS currently has on their plate is because of Warren. He has forced young girls into marriage, sent hundreds of young boys away. He has destroyed, divorced and adulterated hundreds of families and wives, he has upset the law enforcemnent community greatly, he has degraded and upset the Negro people. Warren won't show up to defend the land of the forefathers of Short Creek, he has all but abandoned it. All of this Warren has brought upon the FLDS by his own doing, this is nothing like any of the older brethren have ever taught.

ogre said...

mugwump post 9:43 am 9/10
It sounds pretty good, the rules that you say should be in place, but the problem arises when in the rest of America you have men who never support the children they father.Also, what about the boys needing a high school education when in the inner cities of this country the literacy rate is abysmal?
These are good guidelines but would have to be enforced across all of the strata of society, so it dosen't look too possible.
Education, and information are our best options.

Anonymous said...


To answer your question as to what the Mormons aka LDS believe, they have a website where they have a function where people can look up information as to what they believe.


They also have online copies of the Holy Bible KJV as well as the Book Of Mormon, and the Doctrines & Covenants:


It would appear that they believe the Trinity aka Godhead is made of of three persons who function as one, God the father & Jesus the son have physical bodies, while the Holy Sprit is just that, a spirit.

Most other Chirstians believe that the Trinity aka Godhead is made up of three persons who function as one, but all are spritual beings.

Many people around Eldorado, TX are Baptist. Here are the beliefs of the Baptists ie: their version of Doctrine & Covenants.


Now mugawaump will be displeased with this info being posted, don't think he likes Baptists or Mormons.

mugwump said...

Merycia, Paladin, Ogre, fttc, faithful

Thank you so much for your thoughtful insighht into the why of polygamy. As I have stated many times, I don't agree with your theology, but will fight to the death to protect your right to worship according to the dictates of your conciences.

I feel as if you are leading an effort to assist your people into the light of understanding and an ability to seek lawful accomodation. I find no personal comfort in a polygamist lifestyle, no need to participate. My oft repeated long exhanges with ots allowed me to make my case for my Lord, as I stand convicted. To be able to have rational discussion is what is needed now, on both sides. I don't think that many minds will be changed, but I do hope that you understand that there are uterly millions of people who trust as I do. We need assurances just as you do. One-up's have had their turn at bat on this blog. It's time to move on.
We, on the outside of your circle, think your lifestyle is very strange, and to us it is.

Ogre made a good point regarding the uneducated children in the inner cities. Education will assist but, to become fully functional individuals the first need is to learn the skills of becoming family.
An unknown absent father, a parade of many men acting as surogates who in turn abuse, molest and virtually enslave children to do their will is a cancer on society that must be overcome.

I don't see how declaration by a government entity alone can attain the goal. The grassroots of the home is a stable marriage. Anybody can have sex. Having sex for recreation should have a degree of responsibility. Without examples of love, care, learning to be responsible, demonstrated affection shown in a loving, caring, unshameful way gives children, of that union, a sense of confidence, purpose and the ability to pass these traits on to the next generation.

Sexual activity, outside the bonds of commitment is one of the root causes of the failure of government. Any government. It has happened many times before and It can happen to us too.

As I have stated before, I am a born again Christian, even so I am still a man and because of that I am prone to sin, just like everyone else. But, I have a
Savior who understands temptation because He experienced it and overcame it. I trust Him for my salvation.

Anonymous said...

That is why the constitution was wrote; So that Babtist's could be Babtist's and Mormon's could be Mormon's. I do not believe all Texan's are Babtist's. I know that Mormon's built a Temple in Texas. I see that F.L.D.S. have built there too. I do not say you have to believe like me. I say we have the right as American's to worship how we choose. Take this right away, and you have un-done America.
And God himself will put his law back upon the land. It is written, "This land is a land of Promise." If you take that away, he will re-arrange things. I will ask you then; Why would you vote for your own destruction? Undo our great law's and you have made your self's communists. Worship according to the dictates of your consience.

Merycia said...

Thank you all for your dialogue. I want to add more in response to your comments, but I'll have to come back to it later

PaladinforTruth: What was the process of selecting spouses in the FLDS pre-Warren? Was it still a form of "arranged" marriage? Were there checks and balances in place and what were they?

If Warren is removed from leadership of that community, what will happen to the people? Will one of Warren's loyal followers assume control? Will the community accept the same type of leadership from someone else?

Anyone feel free to answer.

Anonymous said...

What God has done, God has done. No man can change it.
Your war is upon you. We build for Zion. You shall choose your fate. Will you build Zion, or fight in the war? After the testimonie of the Prophet's come the testimonie of the hail, the wind and the storom's. You call us names and mock us, and all the words of the Prophets are fulfilled. God said, the people upon this land will be a God fearing nation, or I shall destroy them.
We did not write the Book. We did not make the law. You fulfil the words with your lies and slander upon us.
Zion shall rise in all her Glory. You talk about all the if's and if's! We have a Prophet in Zion.

People can sell their birth right, but What God has done, no man can undo.

onthestreet said...

Merycia said... Onthestreet, I find it interesting that you chose to completely ignore my questions. Should I take this to mean that you really don't have an answer?
9/11/2005 2:02 AM

The spirit is easilly grieved.

Merycia said...

I quote: "We did not write the Book. We did not make the law. You fulfil the words with your lies and slander upon us."

Where are the words of the "law" that you preach? Where are they in the "Book"?

Do you realize that you are not the only people who have been teased, mocked, or "presecuted"? All men, all races, at various times in history, have suffered egregious persecution, even to the attempted destruction and annihilation of a specific race or class of people. Look at Rwanda, look at Nazi Germany, look at Bosnia, look at the middle-eatern conflict. Any one can look to the scriptures and see themselves reflected back in the struggles emblazoned in those prophecies. That's why they are so meaningful, but is that truly what God wants us to see? Does He want us to see ourselves as victims, ripened for temporal destruction, simply awaiting His intervention to rescue us? Or does He want us to be actors, givers and saviors of others, reaching out to share our divine heritage with those suffering and in need?

What part have you chosen to play? What are you doing for your fellow man to bring about the salvation of the world, that qualifies you to receive His glory in person?

Merycia said...

Onthestreet: If we endeavor to walk in Christ's footsteps, we should examine His life for His perfect example. Christ sat down with "sinners", and did not set about to condemn the world for destruction. He did set Himself up for salvation and leave the rest behind. He did challenge the authority of His day, but with words, not with a claim to power, though He had it at His fingertips. Acting in conjunction with God, what spirit do you bring to that partnership, one to destroy mankind, or one to save mankind?

If you walk in Christ's footsteps, though you might be persecuted and suffer the afflictions He suffered, would you also not seek to forgive as He forgave, to show mercy and compassion as He showed it? Indeed, to give it even as He was put to death?

Merycia said...

I meant to say: "He did set Himself up for salvation and leave the rest of the world's conflicts behind." He certainly did not leave all mankind behind. He seeks to bring them with Him, though we each have our own free choice in it.

mugwump said...

Anon 2:24

Go back to my post concerning the trininty. It is explained in the most simple tems for a purpose. I have no problem withthe theology of our post.

mugwump said...


Your posts of 9:01, 9:07, & 9:22 are all within the teachings of my faith. As I have stated before, I don't agree with several of your teachinngs and could never be a participant but at least you have shown an effort to communicate in a logical and methodic purpose. I understand what you are saying. It is articulate and intelligent.

Thank you again for contributing to a better understanding of your beliefs.

Merycia said...

Mugwump, I reread your post on trinity, and I want to clarify my comments re the salvation. I do not believe that any of us can be literal saviors, but I do believe that as we try to walk in Christ's footsteps, we would want to emulate him. There is a popular question on necklaces that I've seen about lately, "What Would Jesus Do?" or "WWJD?"

This is the question I am really asking of onthestreet. If the FLDS, and onthestreet, believe they are obeying the "law and the prophets" and that they have a prophet in their midst, I am asking them to examine what exactly they are emulating? How can one judge a true or a false prophet? Examination is one method, and hopefully spirituality another.

I do not expect anyone to embrace my view or philosophy, and I certainly don't mean to chase anyone off. I hope you don't see me as "teaching" my beliefs, or trying to promote them, because I am not.

Believe it or not, even though we have a different view of the "trinity", I do very much appreciate your thoughts on the subject.

onthestreet said...

"Yes, thank you Mr. Devil for sharing. Let me shake your hand. Let me be your friend. Let's set up a very wicked combination-alliance, for the God of Heaven is a very hard nut to crack. In the process, let us be very religious, very scriptural, to the point of sounding very godly, while we slip in a lie here and there, and make them drink the deadly draught."

Some of you offer up alot of interesting details. The devil is in the details.

Anonymous said...

Boy Street You hit the nail on the head saying some of you have offered up alot of interesting details. The devil is in the details."

Street What is your postion on the Jewish population. Will they see Zion.

Anonymous said...

Boy Street You hit the nail on the head saying some of you have offered up alot of interesting details. The devil is in the details."

Street What is your postion on the Jewish population. Will they see Zion.

Anonymous said...

ots is hallucinating again

onthestreet said...

They sure will. The first was last, and the last shall be first.

Anonymous said...

Well lets see now.. a false prophet would probably make things a lot better for himself than his people, he would most likely think it was his job to help God out with his judgement and punishments, he would take first and the best of everthing, he would probably claim to be as God himself to his people, he would more than likely trash all the scriptures and create new improved ones, and he would probably be immoral and call it some kind of perverted morality by his own definition. He would waste all the financial resorces on big monuments to himself, he would alienate or isolate anyone who knew anything about how it used to be before his time, he would most likely be very inaccessable and unapproachable to his people, and he would do everything in his power to establish himself as the unqestionable authority on everthing. Then he would claim all this was his calling and was done in the name of God and by his word, and he would have some really good rationalizations about why it's all different now than ever before. His message from God would be to give everything to him. And he would make sure that everyone understood that all his many problems were the result of their unworthyness.

And then of course a true prophet wouldn't do any of these things. Or at least he never has before in the history of religion. So, It's hard to tell, I guess. Maybe the answer is just to ask Street. I'm sure he can tell the difference by now.

fttc said...

Anon 7:42

Very good analogy!

onthestreet said...

1. Worse for himself than his people, not better. He is the most dishonored, as the Lord prophesied that His prophets would be, and hunted like a prize lion that he is. That shows a true prophet.

2. To help God is not the mark of a false prophet, but a true one. All would agree with that.

3. In giving his all, his honor, his city, maybe even his life, he is hardly taking the best of everything, which also marks him as a true prophet.

4. Being as God to the people is certainly a prophet. If you are not as God, who are you as?

5. Instead of trashing the scriptures, he has held so tenaciously to them that he has angered the world, which has all but abandoned them. Another mark of a true prophet. Name just ONE scripture he has trashed, JUST ONE. A true prophet.

6. The very cause of hundreds being CAST OUT of the Church by him, is their immorality, while he has required all the saints to not even "look upon a woman to lust after her". I often heard the counsel to the grooms: "Don't you touch that girl". A true prophet, indeed.

7. The monuments he and his father destroyed (it's all in the history. Ask Benny, ask anyone). This again shows him a true prophet, even by your own definition.

8. As we approach the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the prophets have gotten stricter and looked upon sin with less and less degree of allowance. So it's less and less "the way it used to be", as you put it. Another mark of a true prophet.

9. A true prophet is less and less approachable by the wicked, and more so by the righteous, godlike. For it is easy to approach God if you serve God. If not, he rejects you. Yet, like the Prophet, he allows men to plead and to reason with men of intelligence, that they might be saved in the end.

10. To be the unquestionable authority on everything is like unto God also, and the mark of a true prophet. To taunt a prophet like a juvenile taunting his father or grandfather over authority, it the mark of a true juvenile.

11. To message from God to sacrifice every earthly thing is the message of a true prophet. That is obvious to all who know anything about the scriptures, for this very commandment is from Genesis to Revelation.

All who accept less than this are nothing but brute beasts, which God will also sacrifice on the brazen altar, with the consumption decreed upon all nations.

You say "A true prophet WOULDN'T do any of these things. A true prophet WOULD DO THEM ALL. To you, it is just like you ended up confessing: "It is hard to tell I guess". See, I can tell the difference.

Merycia said...

Wow. Finally some answers. Joseph Smith taught people never to mindlessly obey him. They were to seek personal witness, divine testimony to find out for themselves if what he taught was true. Unquestioned obedience by followers is not the mark of a true prophet according to the founder of Mormonism himself.

Anonymous said...

Exactly Street...Who would have though you would disagree? Thats why you can't make any sense out of anything else either.

Those would all be good points you've made if every one of them wasn't just a twisted spin on what your fruad prophet is really doing. But then again.. maybe you have it figured out better than he does?

onthestreet said...

Anonymous said...
Boy Street You hit the nail on the head saying some of you have offered up alot of interesting details. The devil is in the details." Street What is your postion on the Jewish population. Will they see Zion. 9/12/2005 7:05 PM

STREET'S Reply: There are twelve houses or chambers of light. Two are hidden up. The FLDS comes from two, since Joseph has a double portion. The total is 144,000, which is the harvest of the earth from all the generations since Adam. That's 12,000 from each tribe, and a single reem from our own generation. Every word is layered with meaning.

Like I said, the first shall be last, and the last shall be first. The Jews are not modern "Isralis", but are still scattered. And that is only Judah. Now that some of Israel has been gathered out of the gentiles, the Gospel reverts to the Jews. "Salvation is of the Jews".

The twelve will be united in one Gospel: One system, one sun, moon, and planets equal twelve (not 11), which is the system of the sun. Like the scattered continents, the scattered planets will be united into one. America will be swept clean. Then later, Heaven and earth shall pass away into larger systems.

That's alot of real estate for God Himself to sacrifice, but He practices what he preaches, and sacrifices all things. He follows the same cosmic and universal system.

That is where it begins. You must sacrifice all things to one man, before you can proceed any further. Then you may become Israel, the chosen, even saviours.

You probably won't accomplish it in this life, or the next. Few will find it.

Anonymous said...

Boy, what are you doing up at 3 in the morning?

mugwump said...

and there will be gross confusion and many laying claims to prophesy, but lacking the power therof. He will cause the masses to scratch their heads in amazement at the silliness of the sorcerer's apprentice "On The Street"

onthestreet said...

There you go again, making up scripture.

fttc said...

Mugwump sounds like he got hold of Street's scriptures. I want a copy where did you find it?

onthestreet said...

So now you are clammoring after the truth. Very good.

Anonymous said...

It's a lot better than your always clanging on it Street.

ATAR_i said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
onthestreet said...

Yes, the truth is like the clanging of cymbols to your ears. That's an accurate analogy.

mugwump said...


cymbOl is spelled cymbAl, unless you mean symbol.

onthestreet said...

All of the above. Think again, lest ye be Muggy about the whole matter. You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

mugwump said...

Better to be muggy (hot and humid) than to be left on-the street.

onthestreet said...

Ohh, but the Street called Straight is fine. It is your streets that bring you your food and lead you where you want to go.

Your acknowlegement of your mugginess is also fine. Hey mug, sometimes you even surprise yourself.

mugwump said...

But streetie, when driving down your street one can see their own tail-lights it is so crooked. Your logic is so twisted that it reminds me of traveling jeep trails in the high mountains.

onthestreet said...

Well now, that depends on you, where your head is pointed, see? You have to keep you head in the right place, not twisted around where it doesn't belong.

If faith can move mountains, it can certainly straighten the street you travel on in life. Everyone must travel the street to get anywhere, or the paths, the letters that link the Words of life, and the angels or prophets who oversee them.

mugwump said...

In the mountains you had better keep your eye on the road. If you have enough faith, you should pray about 10 feet of the Vermillion Cliffs to move to New Orleans in an effort to raise the city above sea level.

As for me, it's not my eyesight that is in question. It is your not following the straight and narrow way but twisting around to keep your secret agenda intact.

onthestreet said...

You're right, I will not follow your twisting around to keep your secret agenda intact, for it never was.

mugwump said...

can't even gain an independent thought pattern can you? Better go pop a few more! No rationale at home there.

onthestreet said...

Nah, I just toss your vomit back in your face. That's all. Nothing personal or distasteful.

mugwump said...

Wow! How can you stand to be so supportive?

onthestreet said...


Faithful Woman said...

What if you find out you were wrong?

onthestreet said...


Faithful Woman said...

I'll watch for that in the future.

Anonymous said...

Great Blog! Ilike it.I have Site where you can Find sex partnerTake a look if you have a minute. Thanks and have a good one!