Friday, August 18, 2006

Reply to Fundy

About this thing you have with Polygamy works and Momogamy has problems.

99.9% of polygamists do it right? I as a pro polygamy avocate beg to differ.

Where you want to promote polygamy as a better life style, I simply want to have the right to live that life style if I so choose. How many time can it be said, polygamy is NOT for everyone.

81 comments:

desert darling said...

Yes, I plan to do a scathing response, thus the new string.

Fundy, Fundy, Fundy

What are you trying to do, proselize? Rulon said we were not doing that as a people. Could it be that he realized that this day and time was not a good time to try and promote polygamy?

Today Women don't need a man's permission to spend her own money. She is paid according to what her job is worth, not whether she is a man or a woman doing it. She can vote and have a say in the local and national government.
Not a good wife or mother? No, just the opposite, she has now more real power to make a difference in her child's life, not just try to prepare that child for what is out there.

As for there being 99.9 men who do a very good job of polygamy for every one that doesn't........... are you the .9? Or did you mean % as I assumed?

But that is a blatent lie! I don't know if you just don't see or if you wanted to paint a better picture than reality is.

There were no way even 99 men in CC that I thought were good polygamists. And there were way more than that here in the glory days of this community.

If a woman can make a life for herself in her youth, then more power to her! Don't you try to make every woman dependant on some man who has had everything given to him and has no idea how to take care of money. Who only knows how to work hard, not smart. Who will never rise above his lowly serfhood.

Money is in no way a cure all, but it is sure a heck of a lot easier to take care of a family with it than without it!

A loving and caring family?
Each person has to find that for themself. For certain it has to be worked at, it doesn't just happen whether they choose monogamy or polygamy or whatever. If they want that particular relationship to last forever or just a day, till death do we part or till the children are grown or till I don't want to try and make it with that partner anymore. It is each person's decision. If there are more hard times than each person can handle, they can get help from their religion or marriage councelor or whomever they have a mutual trust in the partnership, or they can decide it isn't worth it.

Age has nothing to do with finding a soul mate. What to do if a woman "makes do" when she is young so that she will have a protector, and has a few kids by the time she finds the "love of her life"? Then what? She either has to disrupt her current life or continue living it, knowing what she missed out on.

Oh, Fundy, there are men out there that are not male shovenist pigs who would appreciate a beautiful, self secure woman who is 36 years old, without feeling their own maleness treatened.

Of course, there are more who would be threatened, because they are not secure in their own self. Which are you Fundy? Are you secure enough with yourself that you would not be threatened by a smart, beautiful, experienced woman?

p.s. No comment from the Streety section.

fundy said...

Sweetheart, darling, your sure are picking on me. No I am not trying to promote the principal for every one. Not at all. There are very few men and women who belong in it.
The problem with CC was they tried to get everyone to be polygaminsts.
They think its for everyone. IT IS NOT. Its for A VERY FEW people. The FLDS have made it a laughing stock.

Yes there certainly are a lot of women in corporate America. And that is fine. And they can probably find some girlyman that will jump every time they want him to.

However when I snuggle up to a female at night I DON'T want to talk about how her business day went, or anything to do with the business world. I want her and me to concentrate on other things.
When we going out for dinner?

Anonymous said...

Good Post, Darling.

Over the hill and loving it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
TBM
"29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

...there is probably a simpler answer if we remember our grammar rules. What is the antecedent of "they" in verse 30? The "they" refers to "ye" in the previous verse, meaning the Sadduecees who were asking the question. Therefore, the Sadducees, who neither understand the scriptures nor the power of God, will not be married in the resurrection."

TBM you need to read the other verses posed by the Sadducees
about the brother who died childless and his wife was passed on from brother to brother after each brother died. The Sadducees was trying to trap him.

Jesus was giving his response to that question. NO MARRIAGE IN HEAVEN.

Jesus said in Matthew Chapter 5:17
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill."

Jesus being a Jew knew the Torah, the first 4 books in the Bible.

He knew the Law of Incest.
Leviticus Chapter 18.
Look at verse 18 Joseph Smith's Inspired Version
"18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her life-time"

Or American Standard verse 18: "And you shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a "rival" while she is alive, to uncover her nakeness."

If Jesus was married to sisters Mary and Martha as claimed by some Fundalmentalist he was breaking God's LAW. Therefore Jesus was not a perfect sacrifice was he. No Savior could he be.

The FLDS practice taking sisters as plurals wives.

I will let scripture judge

fundy said...

Well The FLDS are only one group. Out of many.
Need to take a look at the bigger picture.
Using the FLDS as an example is a common error in this blog.

While at present they are having problems , they have had better leadership in the past.

Anonymous said...

Fundy,

There is a quote that goes like this: “to a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. The world is not that simple. There are pros and cons to just about any way of life, but to constantly look only at the bad in one way of life(the gentile world), and try to totally overlook the cons in another (polygamy) shows a mind of little depth or understanding. It is even worse when you try to put over your view (opinion) as facts. With this introduction I will try to answer some of your posts if time will permit.

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

That is a very cut and dried statement. How do you even know she has been looking for someone to start a family with . With the average life span into the 80's and women having children into their 40's, life isn’t even half lived yet.
Where do you get your statistics on the odds of finding that perfect other to share the rest of your life with. I have met many honorable, caring and industrious men in their late 30's who are not yet married, but looking to eventually do so. Many times they want to be in a position to support a family before they start one (now that is a new concept among many fundamentalists I know). Also, they look for a wife that is more than just a baby machine. If, as a woman, all you are to be in life is a baby machine, then yes, you had better get a start very young. There is so much more to life and marriage than sex and having babies.

“In fundy circles it would be easy to place you in a family where you could have children with a caring husband.”

Fundy, has it ever occurred to you that women may not want to be “placed” but rather have the opportunity to decide for them selves? I would be willing to bet many women would rather not be “placed” in a home where the husband only cares to have babies with them.

“For every bad polygamous man out there, there are 99.9 who do a very good job with their resposibilities.”

Well, if the only responsibility of a polygamous man is to make babies with their wives, that statistic may be close. I need you to define what the responsibilities (in fundy circles) of a man are before I can comment much further.
But I will say, any man who has more children than he can support himself without the help of welfare or sending his young children to work is not a responsible father and husband. I am not saying that work is bad for youngsters, but a real man will not require his children to support him at the expense of getting a decent education.

“Career women are to be avoided at all costs........ They put so much time into work they make POOR wifes. Time with husband comes at the end of a very long list. Been there done that......”

Now I do believe that once a women decides to become a mother, that is a full time job. But if a woman wants to wait until she is in her late 30's or early 40's to have children so she can be a career woman, that is her right and choice. If a woman is putting a lot of time into her work, perhaps she is not yet ready to become a mother. Maybe she is getting herself in a condition to properly provide for those children she will someday have (once again, planning is not common in fundamentalist families).
You say you have “been there, done that....” So are you stating that you were and / or are married to a woman who puts her work before you? I can think of two possible reasons for this; First, she found more satisfaction and fulfilment from her work than you were providing (a poor reflection on you) or you were not providing enough means to support the family without her working (once again a poor reflection on you).

“well yes the gentile world has been set up so that the wife has to work. There is no way to make ends meet without it. Its the sad case of the way this country operates......”

Fundy, why do you think that this is so? Are us fundamentalists so much better at providing for our families that not only does wife number 1 not have to work to make ends meet, but all the others don’t need to either. If only that were the case. Or is it that one wife stays home and watches the children while the other wives go out and work? Does this not bring us back to the “career woman” problem? I personally think a real man will be able to support his wife and family without the need for a second income, and if he can’t, he is definitely not prepared to have multiple wives.

IITMOC

A REAL Barlow said...

Wow!What posts!Now can we all not agree to leave plural-marriage to the professionals?O.K.ladies,Lets stop picking on poor Fundy,after all he's much politer than Street

TBM said...

anon 8:46:

My post referred to polygamy, not incest. I cannot imagine where you got that idea from.

For the record, I am LDS, not FLDS.

Anonymous said...

Leviticus 18:18

ASV: And thou shalt not take a wife to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her life-time.

Joseph Smith: Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.

KJV: Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.

JPS: And thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her lifetime.

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

WEB: You shall not take a wife to her sister, to be a rival, to uncover her nakedness, while her sister is yet alive.

YLT: And a woman unto another thou dost not take, to be an adversary, to uncover her nakedness beside her, in her life.

The Law of Moses (the lesser law) does not contradict itself except to those who do not understand correctly.

In the Law of Moses a man was COMMANDED to take his brother’s wife as his own when he dies. Whether or not he already had a wife, and whether or not they were sisters

This quote refers to UNCOVERING NAKEDNESS at the same time, Not marriage at the same time.

CTR

Anonymous said...

IIMOC:

We do not dissagree on alot of your post but we do on these:

"Many times they want to be in a position to support a family before they start one"

That is NOT different than what I was taught in the FLDS. But to ever strive to be prepared. To always do better, ever improve in every area. Heavenly Father decides when we are to be married.

"There is so much more to life and marriage than sex and having babies."

The sex part I definately agree with, it should not be the purpose of marriage but it is for the purpose of having babies. BUT being a parent has got to be the second greatest purpose of this life. After obedience to God. Careers and other activities are at MOST secondary. I cannot imagine anyone saying or thinking that there is more important things in their life than their own children. I am glad my parents had children without becoming wealthy first. You?

"Fundy, has it ever occurred to you that women may not want to be “placed” but rather have the opportunity to decide for them selves?"

In the FLDS we DECIDE to be placed. It is an exercize of our freedom, not an abridgement of such. No one is forced. Are you sure you didnt shake the cracker jack box? You are definately NOT FLDS.

CTR

Anonymous said...

Leviticus 20

20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

IT'S OK IF THE MAN HOLDS PRIEST HOOD, IT IS CALLED MARRIAGE.

20:11 And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
IT'S OK IF THE MAN HOLDS PRIEST HOOD, IT IS CALLED MARRIAGE.

20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
IT'S OK IF THE MAN HOLDS PRIEST HOOD, IT IS CALLED MARRIAGE.

20:13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

IT'S OK IF THE MAN HOLDS PRIEST HOOD, IF NO ONE IS LOOKING.

20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
IT'S OK IF THE MAN HOLDS PRIEST HOOD, IT IS CALLED MARRIAGE.

20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

20:17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a shameful thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
IT'S OK IF THE MAN HOLDS PRIEST HOOD, IT IS CALLED MARRIAGE.

20:18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath made naked her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
IT'S OK IF THE MAN HOLDS PRIEST HOOD, IT IS CALLED MARRIAGE.

20:19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister, nor of thy father’s sister; for he hath made naked his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.

IT'S OK IF THE MAN HOLDS PRIEST HOOD, IT IS CALLED MARRIAGE.

20:20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle’s wife, he hath uncovered his uncle’s nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.
IT'S OK IF THE MAN HOLDS PRIEST HOOD, IT IS CALLED MARRIAGE.

20:21 And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is impurity: he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.
IT'S OK IF THE MAN HOLDS PRIEST HOOD, IT IS CALLED MARRIAGE.

20:22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all mine ordinances, and do them; that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, vomit you not out.

Anonymous said...

CTR,

You should know better than to get me started....

IITMOC

Anonymous said...

did you mean monogamy?

Anonymous said...

CTR,said "In the Flds Heavenly Father decides when we are to placed"Warren Jeffs is not "Heavenly Father"Neither was Rulon Jeffs,or Uncle Roy nor John Y. Barlow,just for your information.By the way, Lorin Wooley,John W.Wooley,John Taylor,Brigham Young,nor Joseph Smith never once "placed"one person in a marriage.

desert darling said...

It is an amazing thing about time.

People change, styles that were the norm become freakish and anyone that cannot adjust to the new stands out like a speck of mud on a white shirt.

That isn't just clothing, but ways of thinking also.

Could be why the song goes "as thy days may demand, so thy sucor shall be."-How Firm a Foundation

Anonymous said...

Anon7:59- I am sorry you cannot tell the difference between adultery and marriage. I can.

loiitmoc-
PLEASE FORGIVE ME! I DIDNT REALIZE YOU WOULD REPLY! I KNOW BETTER NOW! OW OW OW :0)

Anon10:10- You sure about that? How about this NEW "higher light and knowledge":

"All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandmen through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead." (D&C132:7)

CTR

fundy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

CTR

I understand the different between adultery and marriage.

God set the rules.

Genesis: 2:21 And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof:
2:22 and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
2:23 And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be ONE flesh.
2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.


Do you approve of the family swapping going on with Warren and his followers?

Anon. 10:10 said...

Well CTR,I beg to differ,Warren is not God.Uncle Rulon was not God.Uncle Roy told the people when he was able "To worship none but our Heavenly Father"To bad you and Warren and the other "Great Big Elders" never heard,or would listen.Now lets see if your man-made idol "Warren"can ressurect you on judgement day.

Anonymous said...

CTR,

Has there only been one man since Joseph Smith, or was it that way before his time? When did the "one man" idea start?

BTW, be careful with those Cracker Jacks, you seem to be slowly gaining an appetite for them. I understand that once you experience how good they really are, you will never go back to what the "one chief cook" is feeding you, even though he reveals to you it is the best... :)

IITMOC

onthestreet said...

Anonymous said (8/20/2006 5:47 PM):
CTR, Has there only been one man since Joseph Smith, or was it that way before his time? When did the "one man" idea start?

STREET’s Reply: It started with Adam (God), and ever since that ONE MAN spoken of in Eden, even though it was a large colony of men and women, every generation has been clearly noted as headed up by only ONE MAN: Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Joseph (each heading a thousand-year dispensation), and every prophet under them, each heading up an entire generation, as ONE MAN anointed by God Himself, to lead for Him, as they say: He is “God With Us”.

Anonymous said...

anon 3:53
Uncle Warren is just doing what Uncle Roy said would come:

"If persecution comes from the outside to this people again, it will be because of the iniquity within this body of people.... And the time is coming when the Lord is going to ask us to invite men and women out who do not obey and are not worthy of the blessings of eternal life"(LSJ 2/12/67)

10:10 If he is wrong, and you are right, then why do you hate him? I know that he has no ill feelings toward you.

iitmoc:
you dont know? I thought you claimed to be FLDS.

"I know there are people here who don’t believe in me. They feel like I have forfeited all my privileges to the Melchizadek Priesthood, but as long as the Lord will allow me to speak, I will tell you that I am not afraid to speak. There is only one man at a time, and that is the way it has been throughout all the history of Gods dealings with people, both in this world and in the world before this one, and the world before that one. Only one man at a time holds the keys and power of the sealing power, and those who act during his administration are only acting under a delegated authority" (Leroy S Johnson 2/12/84)

Pass the box after you get your little bible.

Anonymous said...

HA! I am the 36 year old that Fundy keeps going off on. He deleted his post AGAIN because I told him that I wouldn't reply anymore. I also said that I live in present times not 300 years ago and that I would much rather die a lonely life with 10 cats (and I am not fond of cats) than to be "placed" with anyone taht would repress women as he does. I also told him I was surprised that he doesn't move to a place where fmale gentital mutilation is still legal. Sounds like something right up his alley to repress smart women even more. Funny he took his post down again because he couldn't handle the comments. I do think that Fundy is afraid of smart women and is frustrated by the fact that he will never be able to "control" a smart women. It is a threat to him. If I worked side by side with Fundy, I do believe I would far surpass him in the corporate world. Oh Fundy, maybe you should go back to school and get a better education. then again, with the shallow way you think you would first be sued for sexual harrassment for the way you talk about women so you may not even have time to show me that you could pass me in a corporate world.

TBM said...

Fundy deleted a post again??!!! Okay, I'm persuaded. Don't post on Fundy threads.

muggsey said...

This is addressed to fundy re his Monogamy Thread.

What is the extent of your experience outside your home? From what I read it apears that you are as ignorant of the real world as is anyone who ever posted here. Did you attend school? What was your subject of greatest interest? Do you know the Capitol city of Deleware, South Dakota, Vermont or Alabama? Could you determine the area of a circle? How about the cubic dimention of space inside a cylinder. Can you congegate a verb? Do you spell phonetically? Can you name the planets in the solar system? Can you name the rivals engaged as axis powers during WW II? Who discovered America? Who was the first to sail around the south of Africa, to circumnavigate the earth? What even occured at Gettysburg, Pa. What was the significance of that event? Name all the continents. Which are in the Northern Hemisphere, the Southern Hemisphere? What is a hemisphere?

Do you advocate feminine circumcism? What is cancer of the cervix? If diagnosed with the previous condition, should the affected person have: a. tonsils removed, b. tonails trimmed, c. breast enhancment, d. a hysterectomy performed, e. a frontal lobotamy ???

These questions address general knowledge in the real world and probably can be answered by any person having attained an eighth grade education.

Anonymous said...

CTR,

Who was the "one man" after Jesus?

IITMOC

Anonymous said...

Muggsey, I would advise you spell a little better yourself before asking if someone can congegate a verb, find the cubic dimention of a square, or name a capitol city. Now, I agree that people should be educated, but misspellings hurt your message.

Anonymous said...

read the history; Adam, Noah, ect......and from Jesus there was Joseph....and on..... the history is written.......and continues to be written. The Law of Christ is unaversal.....and his hand is extended to all men....seek ye first the kingdom of God......and a testimony is a very personal thing. not for debating....if you believe in Christ you know him and there is no debating.

Anonymous said...

anon 1:19 PM,

So, did the priesthood and the keys of priesthood leave the Earth from the death of Jesus until Joseph Smith?

IITMOC

Anonymous said...

In response to muggsey, fundy said:

Uhhhh. What?

Anonymous said...

iitmoc:
Jesus ordained twelve Apostles. Peter was the "one man", with James and John as his councilors. John the Revelator was translated.
It was Peter, James, and John who ordained Joseph an Apostle in 1829. But I he was a prophet at 14.

I have a sense that you already know this, but have an agenda in asking. I hope so anyway.

CTR

onthestreet said...

Everyone knows that the keys passed from Christ to Peter, and some know that they passed from Peter to Joseph. Anon.1:19 PM is referring to the Parakletes, Heads of Dispensation, gods in their own right, which lineage did indeed pass from Christ to Joseph.

Anonymous said...

Muggsey,

Some of the smartest people in the world don't know how to spell properly. I wouldn't worry about the misspellings so much. I think even with them you made your point very clear. Fundy won't answer your questions anyway. Even with the misspellings if he should be able to read what you were saying. Comprehend..maybe not. That's why he did his "uhhhh. What?" because he probably doesn't want to answer any of your questions. I believe his education is on a very low level. If it wasn't, he would actually answer your questions.

From the 36 year old that would rather die alone in a box than with someone like Fundy.

muggsey said...

I thank you for your understanding of the real problem, rather than my spelling errors. Yes, sometimes I mis-spell a word or two, I admit it. My family and friends could in all probability name many more of my short comings, and I grant them the right to do so. I am not a control freak, and will admit mistakes.

The only perfect individual who ever lived upon this earth was tried by an illegal court on trumped up charges and murdered by a foreign governor who, for political expediency allowed a man whom he, the governor, had found without fault. That individual was Jesus Christ the one and only Son of God. HE PRE-EXISTED his earthly life WITH GOD AND IN GOD, AND HE RETURNED TO POST EXIST WITH GOD AND IN GOD. HE IS GOD, AS IS THE HOLY SPIRIT.

muggsey said...

I see that ol' streetie is still trying to second guess God's plan for earth and the future.

I'm going to take a wait and see attitude.

Pair-o-cleats = old fashioned shoes with appendeges afixed to the bottom in order for the user to gain a better foothold, used by athletes engaged in the games of football, baseball, track, rugby etc.

Dis-pen-sation = lack of sensation, dead between the ears; one who know it all

Anonymous said...

When Christ visited the Nephites after His death, did he give the keys to any of them?

a curious observer.

ATAR_i said...

OTS said "which lineage did indeed pass from Christ to Joseph"

How did something pass from the son to the father - can you explain how that works ots?

I'm certain even God will be amused at your answer since it goes against all the natural laws he created (i.e. lineage goes from father to son etc).

Eagerly awaiting how you twist words to make that ridiculously factless statement true.

But thrill me and state that you are aware that Christ had a son named Joseph, or any 'lineage' named Joseph (the stuff Davinci code was made of).

I'll even help you out - here is the definition of lineage

Lineage: a. The descendants of one individual b. the kindship relation between an individual and the individuals's progenitors (p.s. progenitor means: a direct ancestor, p.s.s ancestor means: a person from whom one is descendant p.s.s.s descendant means: a person, animal or palnt whose descent can be traced to a particular individual).

Let the gymnastics begin.

muggsey said...

Atta Girl Atar_i

sic 'em

Anonymous said...

I could be wrong about what ots had in mind, but i think he ment the linage of the keys of priesthood passing from Christ to Joseph Smith, not Joseph his father.

ATAR_i said...

If that is truly what he meant - perhaps he should say it in english, he writes from a public library - I know he has access to a Websters.

And, it's one thing to say a thing (even if you massacre the english language and misuse the language giving commonly known words your own definition), it's another for it to be true.

onthestreet said...

MUKK-SEE said (8/22/2006 10:53 AM):
I see that ol' streetie is still trying to second guess God's plan for earth and the future.
I'm going to take a wait and see attitude.
Pair-o-cleats = old fashioned shoes with appendeges afixed to the bottom in order for the user to gain a better foothold, used by athletes engaged in the games of football, baseball, track, rugby etc.
Dis-pen-sation = lack of sensation, dead between the ears; one who know it all

STREET’s Reply: Is that what revelation is to you, Muk, Second-guessing? That is what the slave does, sit on the fense, wait and see. Yes, the PARAKLETE is very very old fashioned, with the ancient tradtion affixed for a better foothold, and they are certainly supermen athletes. The DISPENSATION of Christ to mankind, however, is NOT “dead between the ears, like you say. Does that make you a know-it-all, Les?

onthestreet said...

NONNY said (8/22/2006 1:43 PM):
When Christ visited the Nephites after His death, did he give the keys to any of them?
a curious observer.

STREET’s Reply: He gave them the Priesthood, and a Prophet to rule over them with certain keys, and the Keys to the Stick of Joseph. Peter at that time was the Keyholder in Jerusalem. What’s are Keys? They are certain signs, tokens, and keywords to open the gateways to heaven, and there are dementers there to claim their own.

onthestreet said...

ATAR_i said (8/22/2006 5:36 PM):
OTS said "which lineage did indeed pass from Christ to Joseph". How did something pass from the son to the father - can you explain how that works ots? I'm certain even God will be amused at your answer since it goes against all the natural laws he created (i.e. lineage goes from father to son etc).
Eagerly awaiting how you twist words to make that ridiculously factless statement true.

STREET’s Reply: To be exact, the lineage of Priesthood passed from the Son to the Father in Eded, where Adam’s Son to be (Yehovah) ordained our God. The Father of the Son became the Son of the Father. Anything else is rediculous and factless. Joseph rounds out the Trinity, and in the First Presidency of the Church, the Prophet Warren is the Father of that Trinity.

onthestreet said...

MUKK-SEE said (8/22/2006 8:26 PM):
Atta Girl Atar_I . sic 'em

STREET’s Reply: Les, that is exactly what we say to dogs. I Atari a dog’s name? Is she a dog?

desert darling said...

One man on earth, one man on earth, let me see..............
After Jesus, he left one of the twelve in charge of the church, right?
According to the Book of Mormon, which Joseph Smith brought out, Jesus also came over to the Americas and set up a branch of His church here, with another 12 appostles and one Nephi to lead.

Now according to Joseph Smith in D&C132 as quoted by CTR, there can only be one man on earth who holds the sealing keys and powers.
Each "one man" was appointed of Jesus weren't they? Each to do the same job for their respective people.

So who was the biggest "one man"?

Anonymous said...

"The Twelve hold the "Keys in Common".....Joseph Smith 1836


CTR like all apostates like to pick and choose which revelations to quote

ogre said...

Interesting, Desert, when I asked that question to Rulon some 15 years ago, he told me that I should "put it on the shelf" and not worry about it. Then I figured it out.. the one man doctrine as taught by the Barlows and Rulon Jeffs was a lie...
Joseph Smith held the keys, and still does.
The "brethren" never have had the keys..
Lorin Wooley, stated he did not have the keys, only a comission to keep plural marriage alive, so where did the keys that the men in leadership claim to have come from???

Anonymous said...

John Y. Barlow also stated he never held the Keys.as did Joseph Musser.
.......Joseph Smith held the keys and still does.

desert darling said...

I find that the term "put it on the shelf" was just a convenient way for waren to the the people to shut up and don't make waves.

ATAR_i said...

Ots asserts the following

Joseph Smith replaced the Holy Ghost as part of the trinity - what next?

I can hardly wait to see what obnoxiously odd theology you come up with.

BTW - on your last post

10 - for originality
0 - for technicality
2 - for completing all the required elements.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of "putting it on the shelf", when Allen Steed was kicked, I asked a person from YFZ when he came for a quick visit why Allen was kicked. He told me "it can't be revealed yet why people are getting kicked, but it will be revealed in due time, just be patient, and someday you'll understand."

Priestcraft galore!

ogre said...

I think the shelf got so full, it broke off the wall
now we're knee deep in the crap

Anonymous said...

Only the great I AM hold the keys on earth today and it is the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit tugs at the heart saying choose Jesus Christ NOW before the door shuts and the Keys won't work no more!

ATAR_i said...

Do you think the person who revealed that to you 'knew' why, or was that just what they had been told.

Anonymous said...

Desert Darling-
The 12 of Jerusalem are to be over the 12 Nephite disciples. I haven't found the reference, but I will.

anon 2:07- Reference?

anon 3:09-

Part of a letter to Rulon Allred from Joseph Musser 2/14/1948

"I told brother Barlow that I recognize his leadership; he had the right to get a message from heaven with reference to this move, and I expected him to get it before I could follow him in such a scheme. I think I would be prepared to go to the ends of the earth if the Lord wished it, but I first must know that the Lord wished it. I am entitled to this knowledge. I am willing to trust my leader, when he will tell me it is the will of the Lord."

CTR

onthestreet said...

DESERT (8/23/2006 12:37 PM): Which man, Peter or Nephi? It has always been the Gospel doctrine that “the worthy senior” holds the keys. Peter was senior to Nephi, and worthy, and therefore that One Man. It should NEVER be a question if you are pure and faithful, not polluted and corrupted and confused, you see?

NONNY (8/23/2006 2:07 PM): Joseph and CTR are correct. The Twelve hold the keys in common, as long as they remain faithful to the Lord and His Anointed, while the President remains that One Man Key-Holder. Others only hold it under his authority. It’s like giving a key to a child to open a door, because the father is carrying a heavy load in his arms. Whose key is it? They are the keys of heaven, bestowed upon His anointed. So you enter by him. Would you all prefer to remain thieves? (Jn 10):

7. Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

8. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

9. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

10. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy.

ANONYMOUS (8/23/2006 3:09 PM): First, you’d have to prove that a prophet or any man actually said they didn’t hold any keys. Otherwise, it is just someone’s interpretation of what they thought they heard, or wanted to hear, and thus it is false hearsay. Secondly, a true prophet can truthfully say that he doesn’t hold the keys, in order to throw off the pests trying to manhandle him, since they keys that he holds are STILL the keys of heaven, and belong to the Lord in heaven, as Nonny tried to say (8/23/2006 8:40 PM).

muggsey said...

No ots. Atar_i is a very intelligent human being who continually puts you in your place.

She is female, plus, her deductive reasoning and candor are delightful and enlightening. You, on you best posts are not at all original. If you can't quote somebody from some obscure document you have nothing to say and therefore must resort to the use of offensive language.

In comparison, Atat_i makes you look as if you are attempting to "dog-paddle" against the strongest of currents without a life jacket or a canoe. You just can't cut it. Atar_i aces you every time you spar. You are not her equal, not even close.

Anonymous said...

CTR,you seem sincere,I have no wish to debate with you,but if you and Warren are right and we are wrong about the "ONE MAN DOCTRINE" fallacy,why do you care what we think?

Anonymous said...

I dont have any desire to force anyone, but I post for the purpose to prove that we who follow Warren Jeffs are neither brainwashed, nor stupid, as you all pretend.

Just because people leave doesnt make them smarter than those who stay. All are free to choose, not dumb and smart, just choose differently.

But with that said, I ask you, why are many of these people who choose NOT to follow him in such a ferver of anger that they become part of those who hate the fact that he has followers. Even to lie about their own experiences, so others will hate him. If they were right, they would go on their merry way and believe whatever they want. Putting their effort in doing good to others, and not bad.
Why do they want to destroy what they once were trying to build up?

CTR

fttc said...

CTR

What warren is doing with the poeple is nothing I was once trying to build up. He departed from the right way and led those willing to follow. There are those who have chosen not to follow warren that have continued their efforts to build the Kingdom without railing against warren.

I realize there are those who are truly angry with warren as you say. I do not agree with them and their actions either. Two wrongs don't add up to make a right. I will try to spread the truth as I understand it in an effort to get my brothers and sisters to see where warren is leading them. This is not out of animosity toward anyone. It is done in love.

Anonymous said...

CTR,

You obviously haven't read Hassan concerning cults. He emphasizes that people in cults are not stupid. Cults don't necessarily mean people get together in mass sex orgies or worship Satan while burning incense.


When a person has a seed of doubt such as contradictory doctrine or other seeds of doubts and he forces himself to just believe; put it on the shelf; don't let that though sprout or it will lead to apostacy; that is brainwashing according to "T" in the the B.I.T.E. model. (B for behavior, I for information, T for though, and E for emotion) Every point in the B.I.T.E. model that is pointed out, I have personally witnessed. Behavior control, Information control, Though control, and Emotion control.

When people leave, they are much the same as before. Just because someone leaves a religion doesn't make them a saint, nor does it make them a devil. I will confess that some of Warren's kickout may have been just--do enough of them, and you are eventually bound to get one right. I don't trust some of those that are making a big stink myself.

What experience has been lied about? Give a post, quote it, and if the person is still here on the blog, let them defend themself. In any cult, when people leave and their eyes are opened, they yearn and try to get others out. It isn't just Warren. How can we go on our merry way with any degree of conscience? We don't want our brothers and sisters to start chanting

"Our father who are with Warren,

We approach thee this day through our most holy, holy, holy Prophet.

Give us this day our daily spiritual bread of sermons

Lead us not into temptation, but talk about it so much, we can't help ourselves.

May thine honor, power, and glory go to our most holy, holy, holy prophet forever and ever,

Amen"

Such chants get nauseus, to say the least.

Prayers aren't quite this bad (yet) that I have heard, but they are definitely heading this direction.

When our brothers lose their families and crack after being worked over-time, is it any wonder why we want to see if there isn't some way to get them out of the cult? How can we just continue on our merry way, knowing what we know?

You ask why we want to destroy what we were once building up? Who has destroyed the Zoo? Who destroyed the potato cellar? Who destroyed the grain elevators? Who is destroying families? Who is destroying a religion with higher and holier teachings?

Anonymous said...

CTR

I realize people have a God-given right to suffer, but do you have the God-given right to make your family suffer?

Penny said...

True polygamy is NOT for everyone. Like the young,females,young men with a mind, and anyone with compassion, or a conscience.

Anonymous said...

You bet, If I don't have food, they don't have food either.

onthestreet said...

8/26/2006 11:38 PM):
Hey, go on a fast! How prophetic and gospelmatic.

(8/25/2006 1:31 PM):
As for your "destroyed Zoo" poo, nuttin wrong with cleaning up poo, right? Destroyed? What? He dynamited the animals?

Oh my, he "destroyed" somebody's potatoe. Therefore, the end of the world cometh.

Oh my, OH MY! He "destroyed" a piece of grain, a grain of sand! Oh my! What to do! When one removes something that they own, such as an elevator, from apostates, it is hardly destroyed. You act like he dynamited your elevation into heaven. No, you do that yourselves.

Destroyed families? That is the attitude of dead-beat dads when their families leave them, like so many FLDS women left their abusive and apostate husbands.

Once more, what does your Lord say about your "destroyed families"? (Matthew 10):

34. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.


Most Christians would call Christ "higher and holier teachings", whether you do or not.

muggsey said...

ots

And you love conflict! Your chief aim in life is to stir up trouble.

It doesn't matter what the courts say regarding ownership. Blow it all up if YOU or your idiot profit call it apostate.

Why don't you learn the following song. It is sung to the tune "My country 'tis of thee"

O wad a goo siam, o wad a goo siam, a goo siam. etc.

Repeat lyrics until you fully understand the meaning thereof. Have Warren sing a verse or two. It might help him to understand how the rest of the country feels about his self esteemed person.

onthestreet said...

Yes, Christ is trouble for a wicked nation, that's for sure.

onthestreet said...

MUKKY Said (8/27/2006 3:45 PM): ots
And you love conflict! Your chief aim in life is to stir up trouble.

STREET’s Reply:
Yes, Christ is trouble for a wicked nation, that's for sure (Eph. 6):

10. Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.

11. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

12. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

ATAR_i said...

'spiritual wickedness in high places'

sounds familiar.

onthestreet said...

Listen, you little...! You little...! See, I've got self-control. Now, THAT is not "spiritual wickedness". Furthermore, would you call a man in prison as being in high-places, or even at the head of God's church. You have all along considered them a very LOW place.

Oh, I get it: You being most familiar with the ways of the nation as a whole, and especially of its high-places of leadership, and quite obviously to all, very ignorant of the FLDS doctrine and culture, then you like Paul to the Ephesians also refer to the same wickedness:

The spiritual wickedness of powers, rulers, etc.

Okay. We all agree with that.

ATAR_i said...

OTS - is your wife/partner writing for you?

On earth, no human is higher than the prophet correct (or am I wrong?).

His status in FLDS is quite high, as high as you can get.

So, spiritual wickedness in high places - yeah, sure - you betcha.

And right now, he's in a very low low place, does that make him low? Do you mean he's not the prophet any more since he's in this low place?

onthestreet said...

TAR( 9/05/2006 7:32 AM):

Was Christ no longer the Christ, even in decending into Hell?

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

So, in other words I'm right - your first foray into the argument is lost. Round 1 to atar.

So now Christ descending into hell is equated with warren being in isolation in a county prison.

I think we'd have to go general population in a prison with a majority of african american inmates, where they played warrens 'negro race' cassettes over the loudspeaker just before 'exercise in the yard'.

Isn't warren getting isolation, and trying to get out of going to jail.

Round 2 to atar.

Try again....

onthestreet said...

9/06/2006 8:13 AM

No need, I took round three, and three is a Trinity. One man and God is the majority. So if you "win" two rounds of mudslinging, and I win one round in support of a Prophet, the minority wins.

ATAR_i said...

You can't steal round 3. Your' lack of response abdicates that round to me.

Round 3 (and the trinity apparently) to atar.

onthestreet said...

TAR (9/07/2006 11:24 AM):


LOL: Shut up.
Hey, that WAS a response (9/07/2006 1:54 AM), as all can see.

Therefore if LACK of response abdicates, response ascends to the throne. STREET WINS.

Now, bow before your Lord.

ATAR_i said...

It was incumbent upon you to respond - you didn't.

You lost the trinity, I'm sorry.

Besides, I already gave it back to the Protestant Church, you'll have to go there to get it back.

onthestreet said...

TAR (9/09/2006 9:56 AM):

My post of 9/07/2006 1:54 AM, is a response. I win round three. Furthermore, you just now acknowledged giving the Trinity back to the Protestant Church.

BANKRUPT! Lose All, Go directly to Jail. Do not pass go.

By the way, if any of you get temped to say: Hehehehe, that is where Warren is: The Prophet is actually at rest from his labors, at least bodily, and yet he continually collects evidence against the perversities of this generation. Not much left to say or do:

The end is nigh. "The mocker shall be had in remembrance before the Lord. And calamity shall cover the mocker, and the scorner shall be consumed; and they that have watched for iniquity shall be hewn down". (D&C 45:50).

ATAR_i said...

I wish I could say I'll come visit you when you are covered in calamity, consumed with scorn and hewn down by iniquity - but that would be lying.

onthestreet said...

Therefore, cease from lying, cease excessive laughter, cease to be unclean...saith the Lord.

We a happy that you repent from afar.