Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Polygamy and Women Vs. Men

In the outside world women have managed to isolate themselfes from men. They are anti - men all the way and see not useful purpose for marriage at all. They all seem to think they can do without men all together and think its time for them to take over... And that is why they are so against polygamy. One has only to look at how the relationships they enter into are on such a shallow basis, that work out to no good end, to understand their point of view. In the mongomous world the married man is a pawn to the wife, thanks to the court system. In a polygamous marriage such is not the case.

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

Barlow,

I believe, as a woman, you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm a 36 year old, very attractive female looking for a good relationship with a wonderful man to eventually grow to a marriage and a family. Just so happens that the MEN are the ones not willing to commit or not willing to be faithful. I am not one to share my husband. I believe I am a wonderful and beautiful woman on the inside and out. I am giving, nurturing, loving, will do anything for someone I care for and will usually put others before me unless it is something that will be hurtful to me. I am a working woman, but can multi-task and take care of my home and my work. I am NOT shallow, but it seems men are. So, maybe before making such an untruthful remark, you should be in a woman's shoes. Try finding someone wonderful that treats a woman right, with as much passion as I desire to treat a man. Seriously, unless you are a woman, don't speak for what they are thinking or how shallow one can be until you really know. Maybe you should speak about why a man would need more than one wife...because he is a scum bag that needs to sleep around , rather than concentrating on making just one wonderful woman happy. Instead he needs to satisfy himself and have many to choose from. Of course a man would love to live in polygamy..then he could have the many women he wished for rather than being a man and taking care of the one that takes care of him. How about women have many husbands? How about you be one of many men walking around the house and taking care of the woman?

fundy said...

Don't look now but at 36 your quickly becoming a little to old to start a family. You had better find someone soon. Just had a girl friend I know have a miserable experience with a live in boy friend , she just kicked him out after a few months and thousands of dollars later. She met him in a bar , that figures.....

TBM said...

Don't you think you're exagerating just a tad, Barlow? To classify all women, the world over, as man-hating diesel dykes is to ignore all the women who remain happily and contentedly married to the same man their entire lives -- that's about half of all brides even in the USA, with its appalling divorce rate. In most European countries, where divorce rates are usually lower, the majority of women remain married to the same man happily ever after.

It's a bit like saying that, since some polygamists are child abusers, all polygamists must be like that. And I don't suppose you'd agree with that, would you?

Don't forget that monogamy was the standard long before feminism appeared!

Anonymous said...

Barlow you need to get out more.

I know of many gentile women paying child support.

If polygamy is made legal, watch out, the man will be a pawn to many wives.

I also think plural wives can manage to isolate themselves from men also. Just be the 2nd wife out of 70.

desert darling said...

I think that Barlow is a woman.

I am glad that she can still post, but you are right anon 11:58, she does need to get out more.

I think that she is repeating what the church has been saying without doing the reserch herself. Hate when it happens to me and I'm proved wrong.

I do agree with her theory of being able to share a man. There were few in my highschool class that I would have considered marriagable material, and those were already monopolized.
Yes we were all good little FLDS, but still teenagers.

I started looking at men and boys when I was 16, "shopping" if you will. I fould the boys seriously lacking. I couldn't stand anything less than 3 years older than myself. To be fair, some of my peers did eventually grow up, but not soon enough for me. I wasn't willing to wait for them.

As a teen, I wanted someone good looking, but I also wanted them dependable and amiable, good with children, at least of average income......... all the things that the boys had yet to prove.

And how they treated their wife was a big deal too.
Yes, we "under-age-brides-to-be", wanted to make sure we had a man who would treat us well.
Secret tales of good looking boys that turned out to be tyrants when they got married (take Randy Barlow for instance), had us looking at the already married men a lot closer. Me and my girlfriends wanting ones that we could see treated their wives well, they were happy.

desert darling said...

On the issue of women wanting to do without men:

The only women I see, gentile or otherwise, who feel like they are better off without men are the ones who have been abused in a marriage or who witnessed it with their parents.

Any woman I've met who has not had a history with spousal abuse is not opposed to being married. Even if she has things she wants to do first, like her career.

Any woman I have met who has had no experience with polygamy and hasn't been prejudiced because of vicious rumors, true or otherwise, probably would not want polygamy for herself, but is not bitterly against someone who chooses that lifestyle.

Anonymous said...

The Duke:
Woman is as wayward
as as feather in the breeze,
she changes her tune
and her mind.
A lovable pretty face
is always deceitful,
whether weeping or smiling.
Anyone who trusts her
is always wretched,
he who opens his heart to her
is lacking in caution!
But no one can ever be
completely happy
if he does not sip love
on that breast.


La donna e mobile
(Rigoletto, Atto III -Piave)

Anonymous said...

That all sounds a little familiar, 36-year-old-attractive-woman-in-need.

Did you happen to write the country song "Any Man of Mine"?

Anonymous said...

STREET OR CURIOUS Reply: Apparently, you've never been FLDS. The three degrees of salvation is what we are all taught, from the cradle to the grave, and that billions will be saved from hell. Given a chance to fall from a throne, only devils fall. Saints choose the harems, like thousands of women just did recently, by abandoning their lifelong home, and moving to Texas with the Prophet. So you're assumptions are truly erroneous, like any devil, and you leak like a sieve.

THOUSANDS (TRY MAYBE 10) IN TEXAS, GET REAL STREET.

ALSO, YOUR THREAD ON THE OTHER FORUM IS VERY INTERESTING.

ARE YOU VAL JESSOP OR VAL BARLOW?

DIDN'T UNCLE RATT CALL YOU STEVEN?

Anonymous said...

Good Post Desert Darling.

Worse yet in our world the good looking guys could be gay.

But there is a gap in boys and girls mental and physical development.

Everyone should wait till they are much older to consider marriage to anyone.

desert darling said...

The Duke must have met a wishy-washy courtier, not a down to earth farmer's daughter.

Anonymous said...

I would post on barlows thread but he deletes them too.
Fundy in disguise

onthestreet said...

Anonymous said (8/16/2006 6:33 PM):
THOUSANDS (TRY MAYBE 10) IN TEXAS, GET REAL STREET.

STREET’s Reply: No, there are not yet thousands at YFZ. “Saints choose the harems, like thousands just did”, their hearts moving with the Prophet in Texas, if not yet their bodies. Thousands of women do indeed support him, and no woman would support such an abuser as described by the wicked among us, all being confessed enemies to the Prophet, and the Lord I.

Anonymous said...

Fundy,

I would expect that from you. 36 is too old for starting a family? Since you are "Fundy" of course, you just think that only 16 year olds can have children. For sure I am much too old for any fundamentalist. They look for younger girls to get pregnant.But, to your surprise. People these days have babies even when they are in their fourties...wow. Imagine that. I am not worried that my time is running out. Maybe to you, and in your world, a 36 year old is old. But, in my world it is actually still very young. Maybe you also didn't know that over the last few centuries the life span of a human being has been well extended from a long time ago. As far as I'm concerned, I haven't even hit the halfway point through my life. Again, I would expect that from you though. We all know how the fundamentalists like them you.

muggsey said...

I watched "Banking on Heaven" last night. I was impressed by testimony of victims. Those people did not imagine their predicament. I especially noticed the harassment and shunning of locals toward the film crew.

Do you think that by ignoring the problem it will disappear? Will it take extreme measures to correct the situation. The rest of this country want children to grow up without fear of abuse. Women the right to wait until they are physically and mentally mature to marry. Young men to have the opportunity to marry. A ban against any girl being forced to marry a man twenty or more years her senior. Each family unit to be self sustaining without governmental handouts. A severe penalty being imposed upon a man who engages in sodomy with young boys or girls and/or incest leading to the birth of a child born of a daughter being bred by her natural father.

fundy said...

women said:
I would expect that from you. 36 is too old for starting a family? Since you are "Fundy" of course

Fundy says: The problem here is if you have'nt found somebody to start a family with by 36, odds are your not going to find anybody period.

IT's the big difference between those on the outside and those in fundy circles. In fundy circles it would be easy to place you in a family where you could have children with a caring husband. And the reason polygamy works very well in alot of situation. For every bad polygamous man out there, there are 10 to 20 who do a very good job with their resposibilities.

On the outside all the good men are already taken. And there is room for no more.

You being in the gentile world you are SOL. Unless one of the better men happens to get free.... You hoping to find someone.

But your odds are against you. You may never find someone.

In the gentile world if you get beyound a certain age when most young people are getting married, 18 to about 25 or so. Your chances of finding someone decrease every year you stay single. Its been my observation that women who get to your age without being married usually, but not always, have some type of problem that keeps them from marriage. However I don't claim to know your situation personally.

Good luck

Anonymous said...

Oh, lets call Fundy, DR. PHIL....

onthestreet said...

MUKK-SEE (8/17/2006 10:34 AM):
Yes, the country WANTS children free of abuse, but by rejecting the FLDS example of love among the pure in heart, the world only has abuse after abuse, and now terror growing everywhere.

You want immoral boys to have the right to marry, and moral men to not. The FLDS faithful is just the opposite, and this is one key reason why. Those kicked out are the abusers that you’re talking about.

You want a ban against marriage, and call if “force”, yet thousands have remained closely in love with the Prophet Warren. God the Father went to a young teenage Virgin, and the God of the Universe was not just 50-years here senior, but over 50-million years her senior. Yet, He got here pregnant. Do you say, “shame on God”? What does the Lord say, through His Prophet, about you and your kind, Les? (I Tim. 4:1):

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry.

You want each family unit to be self sustaining. Well, guess what. The Lord is fulfilling your wish. The poor of the nation are being deprived of government programs that are closing everywhere, and terror taking hold, while the YFZ community is now self-sustaining.

You want severe penalty on men who committ incest and sodomy. The Prophet Warren wanted the same, and He did something about it. He kicked out every man who was committing such things, to join your world of sodomy and incest. By the way Les, I heard that you also had incest relations with your daughter. Well, most men in your world are in the same boat, doing such things to their wives also.

furnace said...

Religios teachings crammed down a young boy to the point he goes insane has a tendency to create immoral boys, and then we judge them and say we don't want our girls to marry them. So, the girls marry the "worthy" fathers while the psychological damage it does to these boys makes them not worthy of being married.

Give the boys a chance at life. If they want a public education, let them get one. If they want to learn how to fly jets and be a pilot, let them. If they want to study muons at Aargon Supercollider Research Lab, let them. But to give them no hope in life, it's no wonder they are judged as immoral. Give them hope, give them a solid family where they don't worry that even if they do get married, they won't lose everything over a minor pittance. Let them have freedom to choose a good career.

What street is saying is these people are sick, so stay away from them. What needs to be addressed is what is poisoning these boys that makes them sick?

Anonymous said...

Is this why Val Jessop was kicked out?

Anonymous said...

Just a few questions (I know, you are not supposed to question, just put it on the shelf. Unfortunately , the shelf got too full, and some of the questions wouldn’t stay put. When I tried to force them to stay, the whole shelf broke.) and points of observation:

1) There are just as many boys as girls born into the world. Mathematically, how does polygamy work without many of these boys never getting married?

2) If your answer to the above questions is that the boys (or men) are not worthy, does this mean that women are usually more worthy, and why?

3) In the FLDS culture, the man must hold the Priesthood to have a wife or wives. What qualifies a woman? What disqualifies a woman? What qualification must she have other than being submissive and willing to have children?

4) It seems that a lot of brides are taken very young. Is this because they are more "pure" or simply because they are more submissive? Is there a difference between “purity” and submissiveness?

5) In the FLDS, control teaching (right to rule, one man rule, the prophet speaks for God, and now the prophet is God) is the mainstay of what is being taught. This is what most of the “higher teachings” of the last 8 years or so has been. If this is really the "family order of Heaven" why are not family values and leadership through love the emphasis of the teachings?

IITMOC

furnace said...

IITMOC,

I will add one more to the "control" teachings. "The Prophet always and only does right. If he didn't, the Lord would call him home."

This teaching has been abused by showing that certain actions by leading men right before they were called home weren't of God, and we used that to discredit other groups. "Brother Musser wasn't in his right mind when he set up the Allred group, and the Lord took him home over it."

Now, if this WERE correct doctrine, why hasn't a meteorite struck down and killed all Mormon Fundamentalist leaders except the correct one so that we may know who is right and who isn't.

desert darling said...

Some very good points IITMOC

onthestreet said...

ANSWER: The others were never in the Lord's Council of Friends. Where much is given, much is required. Look what happened to dear old Brother Hammon and Guy. Word is, they too went nuts, and cried like a baby as the Prophet LSJ stood calmly and firmly in their presence.

onthestreet said...

Anonymous said (8/18/2006 1:25 PM):
Is this why Val Jessop was kicked out?

STREET’s Reply: Even Adam (God) was “kicked out”. It’s all in what you do with it, and God is our example. And now, even his Prophet today is “kicked out”, but look at the great work that the Lord has done through him.

ATAR_i said...

What is 'the lords council of friends'?

muggsey said...

Sounds like something from a "Harry Potter" tale. I am quite convinced ots has bats in the belfry, owls in his attic and am pretty sure his closest advisor is a 'Slitherin' snake, soon to enjoy permanent residence in the bottomless pit.

Come to think of it, "Harry Potter" shows greater inspiration than do the works of Joseph Smith.

Both are fantasy tales but, HP's arthor, tells a more believable tale than did JS. The difference? The Potter series is intended to and does grasp the imagination of the reader with a good story never promoted as anything but hype. JS however, wrote a much poorer tale and tried to and continues to try to pass it off as absolute truth. Ha!

onthestreet said...

MUKK-SEE Said (8/22/2006 8:57 PM):
Both are fantasy tales but, HP's arthor, tells a more believable tale than did JS. The difference? The Potter series is intended to and does grasp the imagination of the reader with a good story never promoted as anything but hype. JS however…

STREET’s Reply: Yes, you are right that HP’s fantasy is far Les believable than the God of the whole universe coming down to an innocent little boy and giving him the Keys of Power, precisely as He endowed Jesus as a 12-year-old boy. You are also right in saying that HP is…”nothing but hype, and JS however…There you go. That would be the opposite of hype. That was well done, MUK. You begin many things correctly, and I’m sure that you would see it more clearly if you were not under a cloud of darkness, with the whole wicked world supporting you while it is convenient (Rev. 12:9).

Anonymous said...

Street, answer this

Why is it the more important the event, the less accurate the details? "Sometime in the spring of I think is was somewhere between 1820 and 1823, the Father and the Son, or was it Moroni? Or was it Nephi? came and visited me"

Why no exact date on the restoration of the Priesthood?

onthestreet said...

Anonymous said (8/23/2006 6:05 PM)
Street, answer this: Why is it the more important the event, the less accurate the details?

"Sometime in the spring of I think is was somewhere between 1820 and 1823, the Father and the Son, or was it Moroni? Or was it Nephi? came and visited me" Why no exact date on the restoration of the Priesthood?

STREET’s Reply: Good question, Nonny. The more important the even, obviously, the holier it is. Therefore, forget the details…they are holy. Also, all of the Prophets since the fall of man (there’s a key right there), have confessed to their personal weaknesses, even Christ the Lord, while pointing man to God the Father in whom there is no weakness:

“And I will use the weak things of the earth to accomplish my work”, saith the Lord: Out of the weak things of the earth the Lord raised up a prophet with power and strength… keeping with the weak things of the earth for shaming the wise…And by the weak things of the earth the Lord shall thrash the nations by the power of his Spirit…He takes the weak things of the earth and makes them a stronghold for his name…for unto this end have I raised you up, that I might show forth my wisdom through the weak things of the earth. Your prayers are acceptable before me…How is it that the weak things of the earth confound the mighty and strong?

(I Cor. 2): 1. And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

2. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

3. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

Christ in weakness, Christ on the Cross, conquered death and the whole world, and rules victorious over all things to this day.

By the way, you lied! You exaggerated what Joseph said. Everyone who know, knows that he said only that “Sometime in the Spring of…, never questioning who had visited him. You made that up, right?

ATAR_i said...

OTS

There were keys since Adam? ('the fall of man')?

Do you think Adam had any idea what a key was?

muggsey said...

I doubt if Adam, first man ever saw a key nor had a need for one. There were no doors, no locks, nothing between him and God. Remember, his walk in the evening with God, in fellowship, was conidered as their normal relationship. Until Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden there was nothing baring Adam from God's presence.

Even in the 'fall' of man, there is no mention of a door, lock or key. The way into Eden was guarded by Cheribum and a flaming sword.

Genesis 1:26 - 3:24

Anonymous said...

OTS

I didn't make all that up. Combine all the accounts together, and you get just that:


Sometime in the spring of I think is was somewhere between 1820 and 1823, the Father and the Son, or was it Moroni? Or was it Nephi? came and visited me.

This time I will add a little more

Did they tell me my sins were forgiven or what else did they tell me? Oh yea, that none of the churches were right, now I remember.


Why such an important event and yet so imprecise on the details?

onthestreet said...

ATAR_i said (8/24/2006 11:21 AM): OTS: “There were keys since Adam? ('the fall of man')? Do you think Adam had any idea what a key was?


STREET’s Reply: Adam has ALL ideas, as the scripture suggests that He named all things: All ideas, conceptions, creations, have names (Gen. 2:19), and here is a suggestion of Yehovah leaving it to Adam to give everything its name:

19. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Yes, I would say that Adam is the MOST INTELLIGENT of all mankind who ever existed, the very man that the Lord selected to name all things. Now you may consider your own ancestor a monkey, and that may be very true for you, but I consider my ancestor no less than God Himself, the man who entered the Garden.

Here are a couple of cute little toys for you children on Tar’s question regarding God’s knowledge of Keys:

Amazon.com: The Life Plan Study Bible: Life Lessons to Live By: 52 Weeks of God's Keys ... Nelson Bibles:...www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0718006348?v=glance

D&C 27:9 And also Elijah, unto whom I have committed the keys of the power of turning the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers, that the whole earth may not be smitten with a curse;
10 And also with Joseph and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, your fathers, by whom the promises remain; 11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;

Concerning the temple in the last times: "And for the fulness of times . . . I will gather together in one all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; and also with all those whom my Father hath given me out of the world" (D&C 27:13-14).

The messengers came in quick succession: Moroni, Elias, John, Elijah, who bring all generations together; the patriarchs, who bring the covenants together; and finally Adam, or Michael, who brings all things together as "the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days" (D&C 27:11; cf. 27:5-14).

onthestreet said...

NONNY (8/25/2006 7:31 PM):
Ahh, combine everybody's account together into one, the liar, the hypocrit, and this is what we came up with.

No doubt, no doubt. Now, if you can give any account that shows conclusively that Joseph actually said that, then your hearsay fantacies could begin to solidify. That is, church records, not critic, apostate and apologist weavings of whole cloth.

Can you do it?

onthestreet said...

MUKKY Said:
…Even in the 'fall' of man, there is no mention of a door, lock or key. The way into Eden was guarded by Cheribum and a flaming sword. Genesis 1:26 - 3:24

STREET’s Reply: Les, you are stuck in the mukk, sowing to the body, things physical. There are physical keys, and there are spiritual keys.

ATAR_i said...

Yes, but it's rather like Adam using the term microwave to describe the type of heat in the desert.

What the heck was a microwave to Adam?

What the heck were keys to Adam?

Answer - nothing.

muggsey said...

Spiritual keys? Do they fit the door to the crypt below the castle in Disney Land, or Mad Ludwig's on the Rhine.

Joe Smith's 1830 tale is as believable as Rumpelstilkskin or Snowhite & the Seven Dwarfs, and as dead as Smith himself. "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
(Hamlet's instructions to the players.)

muggsey said...

I can guarantee that the parties to a monogamous marriage are NOT kings and pawns. If the marriage is to be fruitful, (that is more than to produce children), both partners share common interest and goals. Usually a consensus is reached before a final decision is made. This is not true in every case, but is true in homes where there is peace and harmony. Are there monogamous marriages that could be described as "hell on earth?" Of course, but I would bet that if an independent survey was made of homes where monogamy is practiced vs. homes where the women have no choice but to obey the husband's decision, monogamy would prove a much happier state of being. Especially is this so if the wife is much smarter than her husband. Men and women are both capable of being sub-standard mentally. Neither has a corner on the market. To project the idea that women should always be sub-serviant to their male counterpart when his stupidity is about to throw the family finances into bankruptcy is a good case in point. It might hurt his ego, but she should stand her ground and consider the needs of the family rather than to cave in to his desire to throw caution to the wind in an effort to stroke his ignorant ego.

A graduate student said...

Fundy (and what an appropriate name, too): Your grammar and spelling are atrocious. Either you do not care enough to proofread your posts or never bothered to learn to write properly; no matter the cause, it bespeaks a lack of interest in the comprehensibility of your ideas.
Which is logical, given that your ideas are based not on reason, data and experiments, but anecdote, assumption and stereotype. This makes your ideas unassailable: no matter how many happy healthy men and women who descibe contradictory situations to your (ridiculous) assumptions, you can simply bat them away like cobwebs.
SAHM's are devalued, but it's far more complex than just "sexism". Women still earn less than men for similar work, companies don't place emphasis on childcare and maternity/ paternity leave, and the government does not support such tactics with what laws it does pass. A man's ability to "prove himself" (whatever that means) is immaterial to me. I care about being the best person I can be, overcoming my problems and being able to support myself financially. I will not marry someone to support me, I will marry so I can have a partner. And of course, it is simply inane and incorrect to assume I will "settle" "for what's left". Not everyone wants to marry at 19. I will have dedicated most of my 20's to my education, as have many other graduate and doctoral students. Many people value making a mature choice: I was not capable of choosing a lifelong mate at sixteen. If a man is so shallow and superficial that he will chase after any young thing he sees (since his wife has "lost her looks") then he's not worth marrying. Period. Your assumptions are insulting to men and women: not all women care about being supported financially, and not all men are hormonally-driven apes that will abandon their partners at the sight of a skirt.
In your opening sentence you state: "In the outside world women have managed to isolate themselfes from men. They are anti - men all the way and see not useful purpose for marriage at all. They all seem to think they can do without men all together and think its time for them to take over" and to that I say: show me. I'm sure there are a few crazy women that would say such a thing (there's a crazy person somewhere that would say anything) but this sort of ridiculous generalization applies only to a fictitious world. That's not how the vast majority of women think; it's not how the vast majority of feminists think. Go and talk to these "gentile" women. Ask them if they are "anti-man all the way", if they want to "do away with men". Other than a very few crazies, they will all say no.
But you would never do that: part of being a fundy is seeing the rest of the world as fallen and evil, fundamentally (no pun intended) misguided and wrong. If you had to admit that women and men are guided by the same hopes and fears, no matter where you go or what religion they are, it would mean losing your privileged status as someone who has access to a truth that no one else does, of being more wise and moral than the rest of the world. And that would be terrifying for you. It was for me.

onthestreet said...

GRADUATE STUDENT Said (9/04/2006 6:42 PM)
If you had to admit that women and men are guided by the same hopes and fears, no matter where you go or what religion they are, it would mean losing your privileged status as someone who has access to a truth that no one else does, of being more wise and moral than the rest of the world. And that would be terrifying for you. It was for me.


STREET’s Reply: Okay then, let us see you graduate on this, and see if you can obtain “priviledged status”: First of all, morality is hardly “terrifying”, even to being “MORE wise and moral than others”. Quite the opposite. The Lord says to “Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven”. To be anything less is what brings terror, by your own doing. Now, as for you graduating from milk to meat, and gaining “priviledged status”:

You lack your toes, which is the beginning of the Kingdom, the Ten Sefirot of Light. Lac-tose is sugar. You are what you dine on, spiritually. For men, when it is only “Titties in the Morning, Titties in the Evening, Titties at Supper-time, you’ll starve to death.

Okay ladies, I didn’t mean to disrupt your clientele. Just remember, guys: Even kings have been poisoned drinking the deadly draught. Yes, it is physical life for babies, but spiritual death for men, for your focus becomes the body vs the spirit.

"Tit" is the Hebrew letter “Tet”, which means “Introversion: The concealed good.” What a mother brings out of her womb, and then offers to her baby, is certainly concealed, and also very good, but only when it remains concealed.

The Hebrew for “good” is “Tuwb” (tube, tomb, womb), and the essence or first letter (“T”) is the letter “Tet”: To be, do, or make good and well”. The Prophet heals, and if a sick society want relief from the wars and terrors and violent storms, and unending disasters until the consummation decreed, all you have to do find and obey that man whom God has anointed, if the Devil will let you (Rev. 12:9).

“Tet” is form hidden in matter, as the female form should be hidden. It is a cosmic law, the violation of which brings disaster. It is potential hidden in actual creation, soul hidden in body, imagination hidden in truth, the BREAST-plate of the High Priest. It is God hidden in all things. It’s gematric measure is nine (9), as in 9 levels of peace, 9 chambers or degrees of light, the ninth being “Yesod” or pure sexual relations with the young, for “I will take the young and middled aged and redeem Zion”. This is the foundation of society. Remove that, and you remove society. “Tet” is the 9 months of pregnancy.

Every family, every society, needs a “scape-goat”, someone to escape to later, someone riduculed and cast out, yet standing the test and remaining faithful. Adam was the scape-goat for all mankind, the “sinner” remaining faithful, and Christ for the House of Israel, the faithful by natural seed or by adoption, “to escape alive” (Lev. 16:1-26).

There is alot more to it, but this will suffice.

muggsey said...

The question still comes, why should a family have to deal with a problem as identified by the title of this post, men vs. women? Why can't there be harmony instead of conflict? I remember horse drawn wagons and farm implements from my childhood. The drover always sought to pair his animals so that together they would pull the load in unison. If one was a slacker the other would finally balk, with reason. Good marriages work the same way. Neither partner should hold total sway over the other. By this I do not mean that one should dominate the other. Men are breadwinners and considered as the spiritual leader of the household. Women are caregivers and supporters of their husband in their efforts as a family. Wise couples do not air their disputes before others. Wome are very capable of offering wise council and should at least be given the opportunity to voice their concern. More can be accomplished when a task is approached with an attitude of love rather than conflict.

onthestreet said...

MUK said (9/08/2006 8:39 PM):
The question still comes, why should a family have to deal with a problem as identified by the title of this post, men vs. women? Why can't there be harmony instead of conflict? I remember horse drawn wagons and farm implements from my childhood. The drover always sought to pair his animals so that together they would pull the load in unison…More can be accomplished when a task is approached with an attitude of love rather than conflict.


STREET’s Reply: That’s right, there should be no men vs women at all, but that is EXACTLY what you find outside the FLDS Church, one dominating the other, often the women dominating the men, and NO driver to drive your sled. The faithful in the Church have law and order, a driver at the head, and a wagon full of women and children singing and playing, and living a praying, along the paths of life, a perpetual attitude of love, abiding the heavenly edict to “Keep Sweet”, or as Christ said it Himself: “Love thy God with thy all, and thy neighbor as thyself”, for upon this hangs ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS” (Matt. 22:40):

37. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38. This is the first and great commandment.

39. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

muggsey said...

Street,

Your warped view of the world outside your little sphere is so out of kelter that it is impossible for you to speak with any authority. Your thoughts would lead your readers to believe that everyone outside FLDS is so tied to SIN and WORLDLINESS that there is not hope.

Unlike you, many of us do have hope, and a calm assurance that Jesus Loves US. After all, his death on the cross was to pay for our sin, past, present, and future.
We are not individually without guilt but, God, knowing our nature provided the sacrifice for our sin the the person of GOD, MADE FLESH, even his ONLY begotten son, Jesus, the Messiah, the Christ and MY LORD. I claim that without reservation, can you?

onthestreet said...

MUK-SEE Said (9/09/2006 2:24 PM):
Your thoughts would lead your readers to believe that everyone outside FLDS is so tied to SIN and WORLDLINESS that there is not hope.

STREET’s Reply: This is true. Such would be a believer. As for your “Hope in Jesus Christ”, what saith the Prophets? “Faith without works is dead”. Now, are the Prophets liars? Were they actually WRONG? Christ saith that without repentence, there is no hope.

Eph. 2:1: And you hath he quickened, WHO were dead in trespasses and sins;

2. Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience

12. That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.


Mark 6:12: And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

Mark 13:8: For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.

9. But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.


And only those gathered into barns shall be saved, saith the Lord, and no I am not talking about “Barnes and Nobel” (Matt. 13):

23. But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty (plurality of wives, and many children: The fruit of the loins, bearing fruit, letting the little children come unto Him).

24. Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

25. But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way (false doctrines and influences from various medias and mediums).

26. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also (evil men needing to be cast out).

27. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares?

28. He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

29. But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them (the unstable young still living at home).

30. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

muggsey said...

Try as you may, you cannot shake my faith. Christ is my constant companion, through the presence of the Holy Spirit, and I shall not be moved.

Your message never offers hope in any form. You always condemn. How can you condemn something you have never experienced?

The condemnation is an effort to make me and other born-again Christians feel guilt because we won't buy into your little man-made religion. I call it religion because it is NOT Christianity. You conveniently use the name of Jesus, or remove it at your will, in your effort to teach a perveted form of self love and condemnation to all others without your particular cell.

Your esteemed leader is in jail, awaiting trial on very serious charges. He is held without bond because he is considered to repeat unlawful flight to avoid prosecution under the laws of the state where he lives. It matters not if he teaches that he and his followers are above the law. The law is holding him captive.

You continually repeat various "laws" in order to re-enforce your position yet when the law of the state where you enjoy freedoms of worship, speech, from slavery, press, etc. you strike out at the very government that guarantees your rights. Your behavior is brim full of duplicity.

Explain, if you can, the validity of your laws over the law of the state. Most state constitutions are based upon the principles set forth in the ten commandments given to Moses on Horeb. Is your law superior?

Do you understand that those who oppose laws of the state are considered not as religious zelots but as anarchists?

Anonymous said...

As a man, I'm GLAD that "gentile women" believe they can do without men... they can! Women are perfectly capable of living their lives independently, and I'm so happy to know that. I'm happy to know that my wife CHOOSES to be with me, not because she needs me but because she wants me, and I'm happy to know that she chooses marriage not out of necessity but out of love.

Dependence is not respect, my friend. It's not "anti-men" for women to be free, strong, and able to stand alone. I honestly doubt it is even possible for a woman to truly love a man (or a man to love a woman) unless s/he is completely independent. When you depend on somebody you will never know whether you really love them or you just love that they provide for you.

I feel the deepest possible pity for you and the other people in your culture. With beliefs such as yours, it will never be possible for you to have deep, meaningful relationships with members of the opposite sex. You will never have a chance at the kind of happiness that my wife and I share (yes, SHARE! as equals!). You will waste your lives worrying about silly roles and rules about What Men Must Be Like and What Women Must Be Like, and you will miss out on all the amazing INDIVIDUALS around you.

I can only hope your children will find a better way.