Thursday, July 27, 2006

Why are there So Many Polygamous Groups Out There???

This is a very interesting question. Where are these groups coming from??

The answer is not far off from the LDS Church. These people, by and large, are members of the LDS Church who either split off some time in the past, or in the case of more recent groups, are splitting off in more recent times.

John Taylor, President and Prophet of the LDS Mormon Church saw the hand writing on the wall. He knew that forces of the US Government were going to shut down polygamy. He in fact passed away while in hiding from them. He set aside a large group of men, with the express purpose of having the keys to seal members up into plural marriage. TO PRESERVE THE PRACTICE. And that's exactly what it did. However that being said, there are problems here, generally when someone holds the key to plural marriage, only one person on earth holds this, he can assign others to do it for him. More than one, however the authority for it always goes back to his authority, and when he passes from this life to the next, that authority is considered gone. However those holding it after this, probably still have it, however it's not really theirs to pass on. It was the one, John Taylor who had the authority to assign it, not the person who received it. Technically speaking those assigned didn't necessarily have the authority to reassign it or pass it from one generation to the next. At least that's my understanding of the way it works. Different opinions are certainly welcome on this point of doctrine. Very grey area.

Most of the Polygamous groups, that have been out there for some time, do indeed trace their authority back to one of these men, John Taylor set aside. The answer here is obvious, polygamous groups are coming out of the polygamous LDS Church. Regardless of their many denials they ARE A POLYGAMOUS CHURCH. Members are going to be coming out of this Church for many years to come. And starting splinter polygamous groups. There is a very good reason the name Mormon will ALWAYS be associated with polygamy, they practice polygamy.
Always have always will. End of Story

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey Fundy,
I think I finally figured you out - you are either a closet polyg or someone from Centennial Park.

god wannabe said...

yea, deleted a whole thread out of denial.

ATAR_i said...

Yeah - I don't want to post on fundy's threads - he just deletes them at will, and then we lose all the discussion we've had.

martinique said...

If you against homosexuality then by principal you should be against polygamy as if one man were to hae many wives that there would a shortage of women.. leading to an abundance of single resulting in more homosexuality.....
Wierd hey..

martinique said...

I have a legitmate question. in your set of beliefs is the husband permitted sleep with more than one wife at the same time?

what are the boundaries those issues, wouldnt that be considered as homosexuality?

desert darling said...

martin

The official rule is no, only sleep with one woman at a time.

But unofficially, I have heard of it being done, but it wasn't till long after I was out of the group and finally started listening to what people had to say.

onthestreet said...

STREET’S Reply (7/29/2006 10:23 AM):
Your fokes’ perversion is so far off the mark, even your bulls-eyes are full of bull. The word of the Lord is this: “Whoso looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery”. No man should lust after his wife or wives, or else he’s finished, as far a the Lord is concerned. All Christianity knows that, because it’s in their Bible, a most basic doctrine (Mt. 5:28).

Anonymous said...

Section 132--

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

Now, I was watching internet news clips with an FLDS member before I left, and it showed Pam Black talking about marital rape on her wedding night. This man stated, "Hell, woman, what's your problem. You were married, ya know!"

desert darling said...

Pam was tramatized as a young bride who was forced on the first night. No snuggling or getting to know each other.
I think her gripe is more with the man she married, but then, he had been taught that to enjoy it was a sin.

onthestreet said...

Anonymous said (8/01/2006 10:40 AM):

Section 132--61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

Now, I was watching internet news clips with an FLDS member before I left, and it showed Pam Black talking about marital rape on her wedding night. This man stated, "Hell, woman, what's your problem. You were married, ya know!"


STREET’s Reply: Pam is right, she was RAPED. Your quote of Sec 132:61 is no license to rape a wife, or anyone else. The marriage vow is a vow of purity, and the Lord here is saying the husband “is justified” (when???): “If they are virgins”. But if you violate your vow of purity with them, you are hardly virgins. “You cannot commit adultery if “you are virgins”. THEN he is justified, and THEN they belong to him, and not until.

Anonymous said...

I remeber that interview with Pam also. What was interesting to me, was her former husband who "raped" her was sitting right next to her as she explained it to the reporter. Anybody else laugh?

onthestreet said...

Goes to show. If Martin said: "Hell woman, what's your problem? You were married you know". This suggests a justification for spousal rape, although who was the raper and who was the rapee. Perhaps they were both screaming "yippee".

Anonymous said...

I wasn't condoning either Martin's actions or section 132. Just that the FLDS and OTS don't entirely agree on this issue.

I think Martin did wrong.

However, if both parties agree, most of us get a little tired of Street telling us how immoral it is to have sex with our wives. Now, street, face it. People who get all pious about sex with their wives because they are too holy are usually those that are having sex with internet porn or strip clubs or otherwise misbehaving. What I and my wife do is none of your !#@$#% business, and it is none of Warren's either.

Anonymous said...

It wasn't Martin that said that! It was another FLDS person I was sitting by watching internet clips on Sethnet. I pointed this out because this (still) holy FLDS felt there was nothing wrong with what Martin did.

onthestreet said...

NONNY Said: What I and my wife do is none of your !#@$#% business, and it is none of Warren's either.
8/04/2006 10:49 AM


STREET's Reply: See, that !#@$#% is the very animal behavior that we are talking about, which is just the opposite of the divine. That !#@$#% Business is no business to be in. It is certainly the Lord's business through a Prophet to clean it out of the Church and be done with it, which He did, God be praised.

ATAR_i said...

Multiple Choice Question for Street

How does the FLDS males sperm get to the FLDS females egg?

1. a syringe
2. sex
3. Fed Ex Courier
4. We don't use sperm or eggs
5. Prayer

Follow Up Questions

1. Whose DNA do the FLDS children possess, and would you mind supplying a blood sample for us to test this theory
2. If FLDS women have evolved to a state of asexual reproduction, when do they still menustrate and ovulate monthly
3. If FLDS men have evolved to a state of asexual reproduction, why do they still produce sperm
4. I really want that blood sample

Anonymous said...

Atari

You should address your first question to William Orson "Turkey Baster" Black.

No kidding.

onthestreet said...

The issues of life are sacred, and with the faithful they shall remain that way.

ATAR_i said...

He he he - he'd probably be a tad bit insulted at OTS's assertions he's a virgin.

Anonymous said...

With enough inbreeding, I'm sure we will can eventually get asexual reproduction going on.

ATAR_i said...

I think we've seen a a couple signs that close relatives are having children together. We've seen increased congenital disorders and higher infant mortality.

Signs of In-breeding
reduced fertility
increased congenital disorders
fluctuating facial asymmetry
lower birth rate
higher infant mortality
slower growth rate
smaller adult size
loss of immune system function

At some point, it does become self limiting.

Keeping a prohibited degree of kinship between siblings, half-siblings and first cousins is probably in the best interest of any group.

onthestreet said...

In the previous thread, honey, you were talking in your sleep. Now you're hallucinating. Oh my! What to do. What to do.

Anonymous said...

atari-
Let me ask you, if you believe in the Bible, then who was Seths wife?Who did Shem, Ham, and Japeth's children marry? How about Jacob? Did'nt he marry two of his first cousins?

The list you wrote of signs of inbreeding has very very little resemblance to the children in the FLDS. Less than one percent. So out the window goes your theory.

ATAR_i said...

I didn't have a theory, I was merely stating some signs of inbreeding, and the that the practice itself eventually ceases (as the 'signs' force the individuals who behave in that manner to stop).

This isn't anything new and exciting - the royal families of Europe practiced it for quite awhile until it 'ceased' for the reasons I stated above.

Infant mortality, and increased congenital disorders are really the only signs in FLDS of close relatives marrying at this point.

In the future, if it continued, you would eventually see the other signs.

I don't know who all of Noahs sons married, it does mention Noahs 'sons' wives' in the Bible (in Genesis), so I'm assuming there was more than one wife for all three men.

Africans/Egyptians were considered to be the descendents of Ham (through his sons Cushy, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan)

Canaanites were considered to be descendents of the line of Shem

Romans are considered to be descendents from the line of Japeth

Clearly when there are no other options, marrying a sister or a cousin has meant survival of the human race. Those circumstances warrant such behaviors.

Read Leviticus 18:6-18

"No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD."

"Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

"Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.

"Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere."

"Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you."

"Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister."

"Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative."

"Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative."

"Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt."

"Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her."

"Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother."

"Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness."

"Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living."

Interesting that the Bible refers to a second wife as a 'rival wife" hmmmm.

Anonymous said...

ATARI

Here is a sample of Joseph's Smith's Inspired Version of the Bible. But I bet Street will say Emma rewrote it.

LEVITICUS CHAPTER 18
Unlawful marriages -- Unlawful lusts.
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord your God.

3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein; I am the Lord your God.

5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments; which if a man do, he shall live in them; I am the Lord.

6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness; I am the Lord.

7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover; she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover; it is thy father's nakedness.

9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover; for theirs is thine own nakedness.

11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister; she is thy father's near kinswoman.

13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister; for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.

14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife; she is thine aunt.

15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter-in-law; she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife; it is thy brother's nakedness.

17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen; it is wickedness.

18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her life-time.

19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness,

20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbor's wife, to defile thyself with her.

21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God; I am the Lord.

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.

onthestreet said...

Okay dear, you can post Bibles. The Prophet Warren accepts every word of God. Now, be specific. Which one, or several ones, has he ever violated? Be honest, and specific.

desert darling said...

Which has he not?

Take not sleeping with his Father's wives for one.

onthestreet said...

desert darling said... Which has he not? Take not sleeping with his Father's wives for one. 8/18/2006 8:17 PM

STREET’s Reply: See, the only one you could name, falls on its face.
First, who says he did that, and with so many having such AXES to grind, how likely is their word to be true? Second, how is sleeping a crime? You sleep every night. So are YOU the criminal? Only the wicked imagine a crime, according to their own twisted lifestyle. And Thirdly: Did not your Lord Himself command the most faithful “next of kin” to “behold thy mother”. Go, take her, care for her day and night, and even that she bear, if she is still in the issues of life.

Is life itself a crime to you?

Anonymous said...

onthestreet said...
Okay dear, you can post Bibles. The Prophet Warren accepts every word of God. Now, be specific. Which one, or several ones, has he ever violated? Be honest, and specific.

Book of Mormon Pre 1979 According to Prophet Warren the undefiled verison. OR did you forget?

BEING SPECIFIC.

JACOB CHAPTER 2
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

JACOB CHAPTER 1
15 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.

STREET YOU WILL JUST LOVE THIS SCRIPTURE....
ETHER CHAPTER 10
5 And it came to pass that Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines, and did lay that upon men’s shoulders which was grievous to be borne; yea, he did tax them with heavy taxes; and with the taxes he did build many spacious buildings.
6 And he did erect him an exceedingly beautiful throne; and he did build many prisons, and whoso would not be subject unto taxes he did cast into prison; and whoso was not able to pay taxes he did cast into prison; and he did cause that they should labor continually for their support; and whoso refused to labor he did cause to be put to death.
7 Wherefore he did obtain all his fine work, yea, even his fine gold he did cause to be refined in prison; and all manner of fine workmanship he did cause to be wrought in prison. And it came to pass that he did afflict the people with his whoredoms and abominations.

JUST PUT YOUR MAN WARREN IN THE PLACE OF RIPLAKISH. SO FITTING.

desert darling said...

What?
Street are you going back on your precious imaculate conception theory?

Another of wj crimes, how about fondling young girls on his desk in Alta Academy. Or is it not a crime if he was the principal?

Yes, Riplakish seems to be a proper comparison to wj.

onthestreet said...

NONNY (8/22/2006 11:48 AM):
You’re Fishin. However, I think you closing with Verse 28 of Jacob was a very good place to close, since this Forum is in regard to the FLDS Church. This verse shows clearly why the Lord has directed the Prophets, from Uncle Joseph to Uncle Warren, to cast off so many. Good job, there. Many of these men who were cast out, also had many wives, but lost them. It is the wicked who lose such joys, and the righteous who retain them.

God Himself is the Father of us all, One Father and millions of mothers. You are ALL PLIG. You’re just compelled to reject the Father and the Son, because of your father the devil, whom ye must serve.

onthestreet said...

I should say: It is OFTEN the wicked who lose such joys...but not always. Look a Job.