Monday, September 04, 2006

The men held in Contempt

Does anyone have information on the men held in jail on Contempt of Court charges from the Grand Jury proceedings? Leroy Jeffs, Mica Barlow and others were released according to an article I read. Does anyone know where they are now? The story was that Leroy was given the repentance boot. Is he back again in the fold? And what is up with Nephi Jeffs. Rumor had it that he was sent to repent. With his appearance in court at the hearing and his visit to the jail in Clark County is he forgiven now?


Anonymous said...

Here we sit, with our nation at war; squabbling over what is no one's bussiness. Here we sit, with our nation at war, and floods, hurricane's around. Here we sit with our nation at war; fighting over what you gave before. Here we sit with our nation at war, and just think of the wasted money to persicute religion. Here we sit with our nation at war, and how much more afordable is peace. Here we sit with our nation at war, think of history and before. here we sit with our nation at war and you squable over what is not your duty. Here we sit with our nation at war, and your lips do stir contention. Here we sit with our nation at war, why our district attorneys waste your tax money to persicute religion. Here we sit with our nation at war, why you waste what money was yours if you had any. here we sit with our nation at war; oh wait a minuet. I am not at war. just you and them. i sit and watch your battle and how many city's could have been built with this government's persicuting money.........think how many homeless could have been fed, with this governments persicuting money......

Anonymous said...

Don't be surprised to see warren in a more forgiving mood from here on.

He will have a lot of time to think, and might value friends.

He will finally know what it feels like to be torn away from his family to repent from afar.

muggsey said...

1. It's not the government's business to build a city, or to rebuild a city.

2. How can I waste money that I don't have?

3. If individuals and coperations operated within the limits of the law, and did not think that they were a law unto themselves, there would be no need for District Attorneys, Judges, Courts, Peace Officers or Prisons. It is because individuals, and corporations try to circumvent the the law and oppose their unlawful will upon others that these Courts ect. become necessary.

4. Had not the United States been attacked by Al Quaida, on our own soil, we would not be at war. Just this past week the #2 Al Quaida operative in Iraq was captured. If these people are not terrorists, killing hundreds of people each month with suicide bombings, roadside bombs, snipers, etc., wrecking havoc in Iraq, we could have brought our troops home, in all probability, a year ago. Saddam was supporting Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaida and now Al Quaida is keeping Iraq in a state of turmoil. We are fighting extremists and the only thing that is keeping those terrorists in Iraq and not here, on your doorstep is the fact that the United States of America is sending men and equipment to known terrorist locations in an effort to save your ungreatful hide.

Anonymous said...

To anonamous 9/05/2006 12:29 AM We are at war with the Warren and tax money is well spent prosecuting him. He is a terrorist.

Anonymous said...

This is not about religious persecution. It is about child abuse. Mental, physical and sexual abuse. Our money is well spent PROSECUTING (not persecuting) child abusers.

muggsey said...

Annon. 9/5 11:52

Right on target!

The Religious pursecution card has been played so often by this bunch I don't think that they even know the meaning of the terminology.

Everyday you, the faithful FLDS are pursecuted by your prophet. Why? For no other reason than to exhibit HIS power over you. The greater the punishment he pours over your head for insignificant acts that can be, and will be forgiven by a HOLY GOD, Jeffs holds YOU as hostage. Warren Jeffs cannot condem you to anything. His IS NOT THE HOLY LORD. He IS JUST A MAN. Your salvation is in the nail pierced hands of Jesus Christ. If you believe that he is indeed the Christ, that he has paid the price for your sin, that forgivness comes as a result of your confession, to Him, and belief in HIS forgiving GRACE. You no longer need to suffer Religious Persecution. Your soul has been freed of Jeff's bondage.

Your body has been delivered from bondage by the hand of the law of the states of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona and the United States of America. I believe firmly that a just and forgiving GOD was directing the whole discovery, arrest, magistration, denial of bond and incarceration of Warren Jeffs.

If you take the initiative, NOW, you can overcome the worst Religious Persecution you will ever face. Forget about Warren Jeffs and ask a forgiving GOD to save you. HE will never leave you nor forsake you.

Anonymous said...

and you then are putting the book of Mormon on trial. I shall stand by my leader and the book. May God have mercy on your souls. and frankly as to the money bit; its yours to waste or to use wisly. and it seams that every generation has to have there hand at trying to defeat what God has written. and again, may God have mercy on your souls. and as to bein free; i am free, for only in the law of Christ is any man free. And as to the accusation's against an inacent man; we only live once and go to make an account. I know that all men know when they lie. All men know when they cheat. All men know good from evil. and a man's sins are forever upon his memory......enjoy For it is also written, that God will give to you all what you choose. I choose this Warren Jeffs in life and in death. and eternity is a long time. and Christ is no respector of persons.

Anonymous said...

and love has no calculations on spelling or sentances. and the message is clear.......

Anonymous said...


Your 10:38 post was right on, and one of your first I agree with completely.


Anonymous said...

I hope Warren spends long hours with the black men he so despises. He is such a hypocrite. Reminds me of the "holy roller preachers" on TV begging for money for the poor and buying a new yacht for weekend retreats with call girls. Can't see a lot of difference. They all have followers that only believe what they want to and give everything to these charlatans.

fttc said...

warren is presently in isolation 23 hrs. of each day. Probably won't see many black men, or white for that matter. I think this will likely bring more sympathy his way than otherwise. He seemed very mild in the court hearing and from appearances looks rather harmless. A poll on the local St. George paper web site has 54% saying he should spend life in prison however, there are already media personalities sympathizing with him and I think as the trial goes on this will increase. The Utah AG was very flustered when confronted on a talk show about his legal approach. Seems there is more attention being given to the accomplice to the alleged crimes than the perpetrator himself. Anyone that has followed this closely will realize why this is the case but the general public will likely see it as being very prejudicial.

Anonymous said...

the men were let go. salt lake tribune reported it days ago.

onthestreet said...

fttc (9/05/2006 9:10 PM):
Anyone that has followed this closely will realize why this is the case but the general public will likely see it as being very prejudicial.

STREET's Reply: That is correct. The general public was right in 1953's LDS Funded raid against them, which dethroned a haughty and abusive government. They will be right again in today's LDS Funded raids. The governments of Utah and Arizona, as well as the FBI, are well-infiltrated with LDS.

Anonymous said...

Street: Most of the towns in AZ, UT, and NV were first started by the LDS in the 1800's. In these states in 1953 there was a higher percentage LDS in government than there is now.

Mueller can't be the first mormon in the FBI. I'm sure there were several before him, maybe not as high up.

ATAR_i said...

I don't think anyone wants to spend lots of tax dollars prosecuting polygamy and the FLDS.

I think that when you have complaints by citizens who stated they have been raped, or forced to marry against their will at a young age they have to be investigated.

That's how it works. warren will have his day in court, and if the evidence proving that he has perpetrated these crimes is there, he'll be found guilty, if not, he'll be found not guilty.

Now, having said that. We all realize that occassionally some innocent men are locked up, and some guilty men are let free. Will this bee one of those times (is warren innocent and found guilty, or guilty and set free?).

Most times they get it right - he really is innocent, he really is guilty - the the verdict represents justice.

I guess we need to wait and see what evidence is brought. I tend to believe if there is sympathy for warren in this case (from non FLDS) that money or politics is involved.

Anyone who has educated themselves on the matter would have to be taking the side of the bully who stole everyones husband, over a young exploited and abused children. It's not where normal sympathies lie - and I question the motivation for any reporter promoting that subjective view.

Furthermore - any sympathetic reporters - please name their names here, and the paper/station they report for - I would be very curious.

In my part of the country, warren doesn't even make the Sunday Times - most people have never heard of him (even after this arrest).

Anonymous said...

fttc: During the trial warboy will be kept in his own cell. But if he is convicted he will be placed in the main prison population. His only hope is that a bunch of FLDS get arrested and get locked up at the same time.

I watched Fox News tonight. One of the programs had 4 lawyers on (3 from the east and one from SLC) who don't have a clue about warboys business. Their biggest questions were 1)why isn't the husband being prosecuted for polygamy and 2)why aren't the husband and the parents being prosecuted for rape and accomplice to rape before warboy? They had all read the Utah marriage statute and didn't understand what the problem was. Wink called in and didn't do too good either. The media is looking for sound bites, not to report facts or truths. The lawyers were looking for camera face time, not to dive too deep into the facts.

Just like '53, sympathetic views will start popping up all over the place. If warboy argued (and won) that he couldn't get a fair trial in Utah and it was moved to NY, DC, or FL, he would be set free!

You can pull off all the leaves you want but the stink weed won't die. You have pull it out of the ground, roots and all.


fttc said...

Street, you and others on this blog, and off of it, have tried to stretch this into the same scenarion as the '53 raid, the persecution of the LDS prior to granting Utah statehood, the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, even the crucifixion of Christ. Warren is doing his best to show forgiveness to all the 'soldiers' who 'know not what they do'.

Warren, whether he is guilty of sodomy and rape as charged or not, is kept in shackles in court and 23 hour lockdown because he refused to acknowledge that he lives in the United States and is subject to its laws. If anyone is charged with crimes such as these and do not answer to the law this is what happens to you. When you make yourself a fugitive of such proportions you end up getting treated like one. Warren is not getting any different treatment than any other citizen would that does what he has done. Granted there are few citizens that have the means to employ in flaunting the law that he has had. The State of Utah had to give reasonable proof that warren was a flight risk before he could be held without bail. If he had done as any good citizen of the US should do he would have given himself up to the court. He then would have been free to see to his people until the day of the trial came. He then could claim that he is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith answered to the courts in every instance.

The charges that he is being held on are not aimed at ending a religion. He is being charged with marrying and aiding in the statutory rape of an underage girl. This happened after a law was passed that prohibited this marriage. This happened after the previous administrator (warren's father) in our religion stated that the law that was passed would have no effect on us as we were not marrying any more young girls. Marrying underage girls is not a principle of Fundamental Mormonism. Yes, it has happened before, but it was never a principle, a requirement. The law that made this illegal was not passed, as you would like to claim, as antagonistic to the FLDS. It was passed after several other Fundamentalist groups had girls come forth claiming abuse and men were convicted on those charges.

There are few true similarities to the persecutions that our people have suffered in the past. Most of those similarities have been created by warren himself. To compare them is foolishness.

fttc said...


The talk show host was Tucker Carlson on MSNBC. I saw a portion of the video on thier website of an interview with the Utah AG. While Carlson states several times he is not in favor of warren his program in my opinion will excite more sympathy in favor of warren than against him. If the AG does not do a better job of explaining himself than he did there it will look like he is involved in a witch hunt. I suppose my opinion is influenced by the fact that I have followed events and know more than is being told on the headline news but several times the way it has been reported makes it look like he is a victim of religious persecution. I think my post above explains part of my reasoning. The whole story is not being told.

I was afraid that someone would take my comments as my thinking popular opinion would influence the court. I do not think it will directly. It is a fact though that there are elected officers involved in this case. Unfortunately public opinion may influence how strongly evidence is given. So yes, politics could easily become involved in a verdict.

onthestreet said...

FTTC Said (9/05/2006 11:34 PM)

The State of Utah had to give reasonable proof that warren was a flight risk before he could be held without bail. If he had done as any good citizen of the US should do he would have given himself up to the court. He then would have been free to see to his people until the day of the trial came. He then could claim that he is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith answered to the courts in every instance.

The charges that he is being held on are not aimed at ending a religion. He is being charged with marrying…

STREET’s Reply: Yes, the state gave proof that he could fly, but that is where your credibility ENDS: “If he had done as any good citizen ‘should do’ in any nation where our Declaration Of Independence declares should be thrown off when certain inalienable rights are stripped, like they were in Nazi Germany, many ran before the onslaught, and rightly so. Our Founding Fathers, not being wimps, not only ran, but did battle. Josephs was hiding from his enemies for years. It is right in the Church History that even the LDS Church acknowledge. Christ? From birth to crucifiction, what did he have to do? HIDE and run. They ran all the way to Egypt, and were fugitives for YEARS.

Furthermore, if you aim to end certain marriages that are patterned after the very ancient law and system of Heaven, as long demonstrated in the Jewish Bat Mitzvah (marriage at age 12), and Jesus being “about my Father’s business (at age 12), and that VERY OLD Father and God Himself, millions of years old, coming down to sire a child with a 12-year old girl, that being the ancient and modern law of God…I say, if you aim to end that, YOU ARE ATTACKING THEIR VERY RELIGION AND GOD.

Yes, he is charged with MARRYING (1 Timothy 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;

2. Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;


FTTC, TAR: Your credibility is SHOT.

ATAR_i said...

OH dear OTS, you'll have to do a touch better if you want a chance at my hem.

ATAR_i said...

To all of you who are new to the board, and have a your curiousity piqued about this 'marriage of young girls'. Please take a gander above to a post by 'onthestreet'.

I can't say that is the rationale of mainline FLDS for marrying their children so young - but likely it is not.

Does anyone know if mainstream faithful FLDS have a rationale for marriage at the really young ages?

I am not looking for a diatribe on how 'young girls want it so bad' their parents give in because of their persistence in being married to the 60 year old down the block who is nice to his 5 other wives.

I am looking to find out what the raionale of the ADULTS involved (parents, prophet) have for marriage at the age of 13,14,15,16. Does street speak for FLDS (the 'Mary was 12' (even though she wasn't) rationale) or does FLDS have another.

IITMOC, Darlin, FTTC can you help explain if you know how they rationalize it. I don't know if you guys agree/do not agree with it - but you might have a more correct understanding of how they manage to get parents/adults in the community to swallow it.

lastly, CBS wasn't necessarily in favor of warren - but the questions they asked were too tough for the AG.

OK AG's office - can you do some damage control and get a person who can speak WELL to be your mouthpiece.

You can't afford to be weak on public perception (unless you want to). Perhaps that's what's with the lackadaisical attitude. It's an embarrassment to mainstream LDS, don't be too harsh.

UGH politics.

fttc said...

I second the UGH on politics!

I heartily disagree with the marriage of young girls or young boys for that matter. Young must be defined however. The laws vary for underage levels in various states. Utah legislated 18 years old. It would depend on the individual. Some children mature much faster than others. As a general rule I would like to see young men and women reach thier twenties before marriage.

In the early days of our country girls were married much younger as a general rule and in some areas girls are still married often in their mid teens. I cannot speak for those Fundamentalists before the early '80s. I know there were many young girls married then. At least several I know were married when they were 12, but the agreement between the fathers of the girls and husband was that the marriage was not to be consumated until the girls were 18. I know these I speak of waited until the expected time. That was before my time. The underage marriages that I am familiar with (before warren) took place at the insistence of the parents. As I have said several times here, Leroy Johnson and Rulon Jeffs both spoke against the young marriages. The latter in my hearing said he would not marry any more young girls. The fathers of the girls would not leave him alone and nagged him into some young marriages. During his administration there were many girls several years into their twenties before marriage. During the late '80s and '90s we had a large number of girls attending college and finishing before marrying. It is my opinion that some men believed giving their daughters up for marriage somehow made them more worthy.

I haven't helped much with the rationale behind the parents thinking I know, but maybe this will get some discussion going.

Anonymous said...

" between the age of 14-18", what a statement. I personally knew "jane doe" She was 16 when she was married. Of course I do not agree with what Randy did. He could have been more conciderate of her feelings, and allowed more time to go by, there by getting to know each other better before he "did things".

I know of a man that waited 7 years with one of his plural wives, before she felt comfortable to get intiment with him. She loved the family, just did not feel good about her sexual relations with her husband. Randy could have been more tackful, instead of forcing himself on her.

I know that "jane doe" loved Randy at one time, her Sisterwife, and expecially the children. I watched her with them, and I know that she loved them. She told me so at one time. Be as it may, hope she can live with her self, and what she is doing. Hope Randy can learn to be more respectfull of his wife from now on.

Uncle Warren never said "force" yourself on her. Acually he said the oppitite, in general meeting, before Uncle Rulon passed away. he told the people "men" that the intimate relations between husband and wife, " it should be as enjoyable for her as it is for the man". I juess some just did not listen.(my guess is that there must have been more than just one woman that had complained to him) about their relations with their husband.

All relationships need work to keep going, flds and non-flds.

Anonymous said...


I would have to give a fair amount of the theology of the FLDS for you to see their point of view and how they "rationalize" their marriage system and why the “prophet” has so much power over them. I will try to get something posted, but it may take me a few days to find the time to do so.

Perhaps you could start a thread on the theological views of the FLDS. I'm sure I would learn something from the exchange of ideas, and hopefully OTS wouldn’t hijack the thread with his of the wall version of our theology.


muggsey said...

Credibility ? ? ? ?

Just who are you ots to judge anybody regarding credibility?

You have to establish some yourself before anyone will take your opinion seriously.

Most of the time your postings don't even make sense, just mumbo-jumbo.

Anonymous said...

GIGO = Garbage In Garbage Out

Classically illustrated by any conversation between Muggsy and OTS.

ATAR_i said...

That's a great idea. It's not something that I'm interesting in having a debate over. I'm just interested in learning. I have purchased so many books, but they only take you as far as mainstream mormonism.

Beyond that, there is such a wide variety of information, and a lack of reference material. I think it would be incredibly education - from a religious standpoint to know the principles that guide individuals.

I have enjoyed the information you have provided thus far, and look forward to anything on the subject you have to post.

ATAR_i said...

fttc - I didn't realize that some waited that long to consumate. Did the young girl live with them and assimilate into the household, or was it just arranged for the future, and she lived with her parents until that time?

11:59 thanks for your input, I did hear at one time someone had said that no more young ones were to be married, but that leadership changed and that didn't last.

How did you come to be on this board?

Anonymous said...

Well here is some food for thought.

I have been told main line Mormon young couples going to college are encouraged to start their familys while pursuing their education. Having no income the burdon of the births fall on the welfare system.

Could this be true?

Anonymous said...

Well folks,
Meek twisted Warren is as dangerous as a Muslim cleric.

He can pronounce a Jihad just like Ervil LeBaron did.

fttc said...

Atar--They lived with the husband and family after marriage. They just waited until the time agreed upon for consumation. Kind of puts a kink in the theory that all polygamists are sex hungry maniacs. Some of us, actually most of us, are very decent people with a high standard of morals.

ATAR_i said...

The mormon couples I know have very responsibly taken care of their young children with strong work ethic and a good education. Although, I am not surrounded by Mormons, and do not live in the Utah area - if that were true - it would suprise me.

fttc, as with any 'group think' sort of situation, it's been my experience that the people exploiting situations are usually those with power, and those with a propensity towards the untoward. The rest of us are following the rules diligently and behaving as we ASSUME our leaders are.

onthestreet said...

Look at the charges: “Accessory to what they call rape”. Now, after the fact, after the marriage ceremony itself, some may indeed RAPE their wives, and that is THEIR crime, not the performer of the ceremony, any more that any judge or priest performing a ceremony for any other teen in America. Now, the only “witness” the prosecution had so far, what they call a “victim”, renigged and refused to answer any questions, knowing that when the Prophet says to “give yourself to him MIND, BODY, AND SOUL, to ALL true Christians and FLDS alike, the only meaning to that is in the FLDS-Christian Scripture itself, TO WIT:

Matt. 27 (Here, we see that giving of the body is a pure and proper, scriptural and eternal concept):

“Give the body of Messiah” (Matt.27:58)
“Give the body of Christ, or His Bride, the Church (I Cor. 12):
12. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

Eph. 5:22: Man’s wife: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body”.

Now, both Christian and FLDS doctrine and scripture is to Love, to make the Love, or make love IN PURITY and TRUTH:

(Matt. 22):
36. Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

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.

ALSO D&C 59:

5. Wherefore, I give unto them a commandment, saying thus: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy might (body), mind, and strength; and in the name of Jesus Christ thou shalt serve him.

6. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

D&C 4:

1. Now behold, a marvelous work is about to come forth among the children of men.

2. Therefore, O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him with all your heart, might (body), mind and strength, that ye may stand blameless before God at the last day.

3. Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work;

4. For behold the field is white already to harvest; and lo, he that thrusteth in his sickle with his might, the same layeth up in store that he perisheth not, but bringeth salvation to his soul;

The field is the physical clay, the body, and her body is ready to harvest at puberty. Therefore, God says: “Thrust in with your might”, with love of course, and gentleness, and without lust, for that is adultery, saith the Lord.

There you have some scriptural basis for the Prophet directing the Church to “GIVE YOUR BODY” to him. For brevity’s sake, I will close this post, and then add another on the love or making of the love with TEENAGERS, and you will see how secular law, Christian and FLDS doctrine and scripture apply to that.

onthestreet said...

In my previous post, I showed you some scriptural basis for the Prophet directing the Church to “GIVE YOUR BODY” to him, the husband. I will now add another on the love or making of the love with TEENAGERS in the Lord, and you will see how secular law, Christian and FLDS doctrine and scripture apply to that.

First this: If you were to hold the Prophet legally liable for the conduct of young girls after their marriage, you would have to hold ALL parents in America, and teachers, and the law itself legally liable for requiring teenage girls to “Get along” with the boys, and with the adults, “getting along” meaning to love. Also, they require sex-education, and distribution of condums even to gradeschoolers ages 6-12, and the freedom of sexual speech and expression in the markets, REQUIRED BY LAW. Thus, you have an epidemic in America of TEENAGE pregnancy.

ALL young FLDS girls are married according to the law of the land, which states that if under 16 girls must have parental conscent or a judge’s approval. They have always had that before a marriage took place. If a judge was also legally required, Judge Steed certainly gave his approval. That was one of the thorn in the side of the LDS Church, the state, and their faithful member in the FBI, Director Mueller. Therefore, they got their state judicial conduct commission to disqualify him, and the LDS Church control of the FBI to make him a wanted man and a fugitive. HOW PREJUDICIAL! NOTHING JUDICIAL ABOUT THAT AT ALL.

“Well, wait a minute. The Prophet is marrying those teens for procreation”! So then, is child-bearing a crime in God’s law, or man’s? Outside the FLDS Church, they procreate WITHOUT marriage. So which is the crime, marriage or adultery? Indeed, the governments promote teen pregnancy as noted above, and adultery, and promiscuity in the markets and the schools, as “sex education” and “freedom of expression”, seldom if every prosecuting adulterers. WHO THEN IS THE CRIMINAL? CERTAINLY, NOT THE PROPHET, for he REQUIRES marriage, and also for the men to “LEAVE THAT GIRL ALONE”, or you will be excommunicated, which he has done. The world is witness.

Isn’t the Christain commandment to “Love God”, which is proven by abiding in His laws of marriage in the bat mitzvah at age 12, and abiding with her in purity and truth? Therefore, if you don’t let God make the love in you, and in her, you are criminal. You have violated the law, and the Prophet casts all such men OUT who lust after a woman. For that is the adultery, saith the Lord, and the government promotes it.


onthestreet said...

Ahh, ATAR, "You Assume" your leaders follow the rules (Rev. 12:9). That revelation tells it all, unless God is a liar.

monkey! said...

OTS: "Furthermore, if you aim to end certain marriages that are patterned after the very ancient law and system of Heaven, as long demonstrated in the Jewish Bat Mitzvah (marriage at age 12), and Jesus being “about my Father’s business (at age 12), and that VERY OLD Father and God Himself, millions of years old, coming down to sire a child with a 12-year old girl, that being the ancient and modern law of God…I say, if you aim to end that, YOU ARE ATTACKING THEIR VERY RELIGION AND GOD."

Just a thought... life expectancy of a person during the time of the "immaculate conception" was around 30 years old. Techically 12 was practically middle-aged.

I like hearing from those who are practicing, faithful FLDS who do not have the same rigid closed minded thought process as OTS. It's good to hear that he is generally not the "rule" of the FLDS. :)

wildthangfromCC said...


I know this is off the subject, but,I have tried for the life of me to figure out what your name stands for??? Please enlighten!

ATAR_i said...

8:12 I echo your sentiment.

'the one who now claims to be OTS' - let me correct you "I assumED" (past tense). I no longer am naive enough to believe that the condition of my heart and the thoughts in my head are indeed the same as those around me, even if vocalizations are intended to create that belief.

Poster above calling themselves OTS - you are not OTS - he doesn't believe in making love to wives - as stated in multiple posts over the past year.

Where is OTS - and who are you?

Anonymous said...

You know, i used to read this blog a lot, with an occasional post, but it's gotten so ridiculous that I think I'm going to stop. It's turned into a total waste of time.

Anonymous said...

IITMOC--he stated it is "integrity in the moment of crisis", but I think it should be "ingenuity in the moment of crisis". It's hard wiggling out of some circumstances when you are still "in" but not in.

Anonymous said...

You sure use the scriptures in a perverted way. I wish I could agree with you, but why do you desecrate and putrify Section 4 to be a sexual act? THAT IS SICK! Is your mind really that low? Clean it up!


Anonymous said...

9/07/2006 3:56 PM,

You were close. It stands for Integrity In The Moment Of Choice.


fttc said...


That is a mild sample of the perversity OTS has used in the past to 'defend' his Prophet. Perhaps you have not read much of what he writes. He surely must be responsible for some readers thinking the FLDS are freaks. He does a better job making the FLDS look bad than any single poster. Some have even speculated that he is actually trying to harm the FLDS cause. It is not hard to believe.

onthestreet said...

OTS (9/07/2006 4:23 PM):
You sure use the scriptures in a perverted way. I wish I could agree with you, but why do you desecrate and putrify Section 4 to be a sexual act? THAT IS SICK! Is your mind really that low? Clean it up!


STREET’s Reply: Ahh, you assume sometimes the Word of God “sick”. People alse sexualize the “Song of Solomon”, while it has nothing to do with moral perversity. That is just the lowly assumption based on their own minds. To “give you body” to a man IS NOT to give in to immoral practices, for then you would no longer be a saint. You often forget that the Immaculate Conception of Christ is NEVER an immoral act, but rather a Priesthood ordinance.

To accuse a man thus, “desecrating and putrifying” sacred things according to your own thinking, is the problem that the Priesthood and the Lord have faced all along, because as Joseph warned the sisters in the Relief Society, women are ofter “so overzealous in spiritual matters”.

I recall that you also accused Christ of procreating or being procreated by an immoral act, saying that it was “done just like any other man, or dog. I trust, sister, that you will be able to get your thinking straight. If you can't, then you have joined the enemy, and the Devil has got you.

gadestring said...

Atar_i asks:
Does anyone know if mainstream faithful FLDS have a rationale for marriage at the really young ages?
I am looking to find out what the raionale of the ADULTS involved (parents, prophet) have for marriage at the age of 13,14,15,16.

Perhaps I can offer my perspective on this.

Having grown up and married under the LeRoy Johnson / Rulon Jeffs era, here is what I observed as far as some related rationales for them (the prophets) to marry off younger girls to (presumably) faithful FLDS men.

---- Some FLDS girls reaching adolescence go through some of the typical rebelliousness that so many girls do in the outside world. (The same is true of adolescent boys, but I'm focusing here on the question of rationalizing girls' early marriages. The boys are a whole 'nother debacle.)

These young girls act out in relatively typical teenage ways, which often introduces a lot of stress and discord into their father's large families. They can - in spite of their indoctrination and teaching - get pretty unmanageable. In conversation it was often referred to as "sowing their wild oats." This is very disruptive to the rest of the family, especially for parents - the man and all of his wives - to have this "bad example" being displayed in front of the younger children. Consider the domino effect.

So, in an effort to maintain control of his family and/or get advice, the father reports his daughter's rebelliousness to the prophet. Often this turns into, "Let's get her married and she'll quickly settle down especially once she starts having children." Often this "solution" is requested by the girl's father in an effort to "save" her. What this does is shift responsibilty for her out of his family and into another man's.

This scenario, is where she is "threatened" with eternal damnation and is often given an either/or ultimatum or just very strong "encouragement" and parental rationalizing to place herself. She often sees this as her only recourse.

---- Another version: the girl's hormones are kicking in and her rebelliousness is reflected in her desire to be with boys and/or be overly interested in things sexual. The problem here is that (as I was taught) sex education is the responsibility of the husband, NOT the parents. When she starts to menstruate, her mother(s) will teach her the basics about it and how to take care of herself, but she will understand more fully (how babies are made, for instance) when she gets married; her husband will "teach" her about sex. This is a big driver for a girl. She wants to understand and the sooner she gets married the sooner she'll know. She requests a placement in marriage.

---- Then there's the version where the unruly teen is SO irritated and disgusted with the lack of freedom and independence in her father's family; she knows that her quickest way out is to ask to be placed in marriage. She thinks she is grown up and ready for married life and wants to be "the mother" and make her own decisions. So she requests a placement. Very immature, but it guarantees that she'll get out of her parental family much sooner.

Now, I know that there are many "good" girls who will ask for placement at a fairly young age, just because they feel they are mature enough and want to start their "grownup life." It's quite true that FLDS girls, because of their upbringing and the responsibilities placed on them as they grow up in their father's family, are often much more mature for their age than is the case outside of the FLDS faith. I also know they they have often been told to pray about it, encouraged to finish their high school education and be a help to her father's family before taking that step. These girls will nearly always comply.

However, when it comes to the rebellious teen, marriage is the surest way to "save" her.

Uhhh... sorry for such a long post.

Anonymous said...


Isn't that the devil's plan--force all to do right?

Anonymous said...

Gadstring, I hope your not trying to justify "prophet dubya jay" breaking the law because A spoiled teenage girl wants him too.
many statuatory rapes happen because the girl "wanted to" but the law holds the adult accountable, and he goes to jail!

Just A thought from,

muggsey said...

Bluebeard is correct in his assessment of statuatory 'rape.' It doesn't matter how 'hot to trot' the juvinile girl is, or boy either, the adult is the responsible party, as it should be.

Anonymous said...

All families are different.In Canada we were taught sex ed at school.You can only speak for your own family's way of doing things.My Dad and mom sat all of us down and told us about puberty,sex etc.They talked to us about improper touch,etc.My mom and Dad talked to us about NOT marring to young,and not feeling like we had to marry whom ever we were told to. We were told that we had .choices.Some flds people just choose to hand over all their rights.We were all taught we had freedom of choice.Some people like to be controled.They are idiots.

Anonymous said...

I don't think gadestring is trying to justify, just trying to give some of the "rational" for the young marriages.


gadestring said...

I most certainly am NOT trying to justify Warren Jeffs (or anyone else!) marrying underage girls!! Exactly the opposite; the practice is absolutely repugnant!

I was merely trying to address Atar's quest to understand the rationale behind said practice from just my one (formerly) insider's experience and viewpoint.

I guarantee you Warren knows it is illegal and chooses to ignore it under the guise of religious doctrine - that it was God's will - i.e., "God told me to do it."

If you ask me, the parents ought to be strung up for allowing and even promoting their young daughters to go through with it in the first place! If they are going to commit to having (lots!) of children, they NEED to be responsible for them until they come of age.

The problem is that this religion does not "allow" mothers and fathers to be responsible adults in the normal sense. They are ALL - men, women & children alike - answerable to "the prophet" with their salvation at stake.

gadestring said...

Canadian anon 4:45,

You are right that "all families are different." I was just giving my perspective of the way both my father and my husband taught their families in SLC.

I actually figured it all out before I was married anyway... mostly from a dictionary. It started with looking up the word "fornication" from reading the bible. LOL

(Truth be told, I found other sources as well. I was a fairly resourceful youngster.)

ATAR_i said...

Gadstring - that is exactly the sort of explanation I was seeking. I don't mind the long post - it was thorough, and had reasonable explanations for the practice.

In a culture where having an unruly child is a pox upon your own integrity - I can see the potential allure of some of those options.

I don't take your explanation as approval, it was merely an explanation and I appreciate it. My appreciation for your explanation should not be taken as an approval of this practice either - it's merely appreciation for your willingness to explain.

Anonymous said...


muggsey said...

I taught my children, with the aid of my wife, the facts of life one step at a time. As they sought an answer we gave it to the best of our ability and the extent of their understanding. We kept the lines of communication open and never introduced the subject but just provided the information asked for.

Fortunately a pair of kids was born to a nanny while they observed. Their awe was wholesome and the answers we gave satisfied their curiousity for the time being. We answered each and every question frankly, without embarassment on our part and to their inquisitive minds.

I learned the basics of sex as a matter of back alley mis-information. I am so glad that our children received the facts, as they expressed interest, to the best of our ability. Incidently, they have instructed their own children in much the same fashion. There does not now nor did there ever seem to be confusion or doubt.

Above all else, we taught them that the union of male and female, the highest human expression of love, was a gift of God and only to be entered into following the sanctity of marriage. We explained why and told them the possible consequences. I believe that we sent them forth as adults well armed to deal with the trials of marriage.

onthestreet said...

Mukk-See Said (9/08/2006 9:01 PM):
“Fortunately a pair of kids was born to a nanny while they observed…I learned the basics of sex as a matter of back alley mis-information”.

STREET’s Reply: We know that, you alley-cat. Les, what did you do to your nanny? However, with your children, it looks like you’re doing the best you know. God bless you in that.

muggsey said...

The end result justified the means.

Anonymous said...

Muggsey, you ought to change your name to scarecrow,ots keeps making "strawmen" in your image,and then attacking them viciously.

an idea, from bluebeard.

Anonymous said...

gadestring, while I agree with your assesment on some of the reasons why the girls want to be married and taught the facts of life by their husband, where in the techings were these guys supposed to have learned it. Trial and error?

What is your explaination of that?

gadestring said...

anon 9/09/2006 4:16 PM,

Beats me! I've wondered the same thing.

The only thing I ever heard in all the years I was still "in" was, "Just do what comes naturally."

On the other hand, there are (or maybe I should say were) some strict rules regarding sexual intercourse. I wonder how it works now under Uncle Warren's teachings.

For a young man just getting his 1st wife it could well be a matter of trial and error. Of course, his learning curve only applies when he gets his 1st wife. After that, he's a pro, right?

Ahhh yes; such an advantage for plural wives and possibly an incentive to be one. No guesswork.
(sarcasm intended)

ATAR_i said...

Well, I just hope the women are *happy.


muggsey said...


I'll take your idea under consideration. I don't mind being ots' strawman. I put out a message that he doesn't have an effective challange so he attacks using plays on words, hyperbole, under-statement & overstatement of facts, metaphors, annonyms, homonyms and especially self-generated giberish to attempt to make a point. I can make him really mad, but his attempts at humor are really pitiful.

I think I'll just stick to the truth, with a bit of hyperbole thrown in for fun, just to read his ineffective reply.

Anonymous said...

you were right, I rarely read ots posts.

you are worse off then I thought. I do not call the word of God sick; I call you interpreting it to be a sexual act as a sick MIS-interpretation. Your posts make it very difficult for me to defend my religion, because people think I agree with your logic.
What you need to do is go and read the story of Lehi's dream in the BOM, the history of Joseph by his mother (the story of his father’s dream of the tree) and then read section 4 again. Section 4 was to Joseph Smith Senior (and us) it had nothing to do with physical procreation, but was for spiritual harvesting.

About immaculate conception, you are confused about the difference between physical and spiritual. All things that are spiritual are created spiritually, and all things physical are created physically. That is why there was a NEED for the fall of Adam. That is why we are physically conceived in sin. Michael, our immaculate God and Spiritual Father, sired Jesus physically. Jesus was the only begotten of the Father, physically.
We are all His children spiritually.
We all have pure, eternal spirits, it is our physical bodies and minds that we are here gain and to purify.


Anonymous said...

the last paragraph in your 9:01 post sounds exactly like what I was taught.

I wanted to comment on what gadestring brought up, for it proves that the girls are NOT forced.

All three of the scenarios gadestring defined in her post (9/8 12:39 AM) (except the ultimatum/threat part) COMBINED semi-accurately describe EACH of my rebellious sisters. Rebellion and unbecoming contact with boys are always intertwined. “Saving” them, by marrying them, does not work, unless THEY believe it is the RIGHT thing to do.

I had several sisters who were VERY rebellious, (one who left, and came back) and they did not get married until they decided to settle down. I remember telling two of them that, as their brother, I was willing to give my life in defense of their virtue. All of the rebellious ones waited until they were over 18, and most of the unrebellious ones too, but that is an afterthought. Now, you could offer them all the money in the world to leave the FLDS, and they would not.

In the FLDS, the only reason girls married when they were teenagers, is because THEY wanted to, and making them wait affects no one except them, and their children. Making them wait until 18 means absolutely nothing to the FLDS. It is just a thinly veiled attack on our religion. Just an attempt to LESSEN the dignity of our faith; A way to make our marriages less "good" than yours.

About me, I too learned about "how it works" by reading the medical encyclopedia WITH my wife, after we married. And the moral rules are as strict as ever. If not more so. And that is a GOOD thing.

According to 34% (820,000) of teenage girls in the U.S. become pregnant EVERY YEAR. And a report on states that TWO THIRDS of them were to adult men. I am as disgusted as anyone else about teenage pregnancy to unwed mothers, or any sex without marriage. And I think it is ALWAYS the mans responsibility. But MARRIAGE by teenagers is rarely, if ever, attacked, unless it is associated with religious polygamy.


onthestreet said...

MUK (9/10/2006 2:06 PM):

Sorry MUK, ye can't pitch anything yeaint got. How's that for effect? Now, I know it may have complete ZERO effect upon the density of a quasar, and something so small, but if you are able to get an examination of you head, perhaps some of that density can be lifted.

My boy, the great density laying hold upon your heart is also an accurate prognosis, by which you may benefit, at least in another life, and maybe in this one if you will ask the Lord with an humble heart.

muggsey said...

If anyone with any sense can interpret ots and pass the results on to those of us not familiar with with his fantasy-world nor the convoluted language he uses, please advise. In an effort to be cute he passes the point of solid logical reasoning. If you are a puzzled with his rants as I, please don't bother.

ATAR_i said...

CTR I appreciate you explaining a small snippet of theology. You are right, OTS has clouded a normal understanding of some issues. Thus far, not many FLDS (and non FLDS) read his drivel, thus it goes, uncontradicted by the group he purports to support.

You are right about many individuals not caring about teen agers having sex, and that includes parents. Of course - this is upsetting, and law enforcement has not been involved


they find out it is with an adult.

I'm not saying this to contradict you, or to prove my point, it just happens to be in the news a LOT.

At a local private high school a senior, who happened to be 18, was hauled away in handcuffs for his relationship with a 15 year old. She didn't complain, all that happened was that someone contacted the authorities.

Mary Kay Letourneau, Joey Buttafuco - those are the salacious cases that make it into the news, but adults having sex with underage minors is prosecuted ALL THE TIME.

I like to think that you can aknowledge that.

If you want to fight the fight of lowering the age of consent, there are organizations out there trying to do that same thing (without success).

NAMBLA. The national association for man/boy love has been trying to do just that. THIS is a quote from their website (which I had to visit - YUK)

"NAMBLA's membership is open to everyone sympathetic to personal freedom. Our goal is to end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen, mutually consensual relationships"

It just doesn't matter if it's consensual. The law states adults can't have sex with kids, no matter what religion, what sexual orientation - if you want to do that - you have to go to Thailand, or someplace like that.

In all STATES sexual intercourse with a woman (someone you are NOT LEGALLY WED TO) under the age of consent is irrebuttably presume to be rape of that woman. HER CONSENT IS IRRELEVANT, she is presume to be unable to consent to sexual intercourse until she reaches the age of consent. This age ranges in all states from 14-18.

To obey the law AND practice marriage to young girls

1. wait til they are 18 (that is still young)
2. emancipate your minors legally
3. marry them to young men their own age
4. make them a first AND LEGAL wife

I just don't understand the urgency to marry a girl when she is 14. Why why why why why can't you wait until they are 18

furnace said...


You mention wishing you could defend OTS. I haven't been here from the start, and often a lot goes by that I don't see, but I suspect that OTS is not FLDS, but XLFDS with a vengence and playing the "devil's advocate."

Anonymous said...

In the FLDS, there is no urgency to marry at any age. The only reason for marriage is for moral FAMILY creation, and ETERNAL happiness. THAT is the goal, that is what we were taught in public and in private by Warren Jeffs, and Rulon Jeffs, and Leroy S Johnson. Sex is not the goal in our religion, an eternal and mortal family that is pleasing to God is.

The age of consent to MARRY is 16 in Utah, and most other states. Utah had to ADD that extra religious polygamy persecuting law requiring the GOVERNMENT to approve marriages under 18. THAT is the law that Rodney Holm was convicted of. MARRIAGE to a girl 10 years his junior. And of course they couldnt convict him of that without proving they were married, which convicted him of bigamy also.
Had there NOT been a MARRIAGE ceremony, that case would not have lasted a day.

I will acknowledge that statutory rape is, and should be more widely prosecuted, IF there is no wedding, IF the parents do not approve, and IF the girl does not want it. The cases you speak of do not fit that bill, in the least. The monogomist relations that do fit that criteria are NEVER prosecuted.

IF YOU will acknowlege that Polygamy, in and of itself, is not abuse, then you might start to see.

I still would bet nickels to $20 bills that "Jane Doe" has had a thousand times much more pressure to testify against Uncle Warren than she ever did from him to get married.

The thing I dont understand, from my prospective, is the cloudy headed assumption that girls lose their freedom if they become wives and mothers. Are you not free now? For every Caroline Blackmore Jessop, there are 4000 women like my mother, free to leave, but have less than a zero desire to. I know that many of the certified teachers, and registered nurses in the FLDS, had both a college education and a career AFTER getting married, and having children. And I bet even YOU would agree that raising children is the greatest career in the world.


Anonymous said...


Excellent post (9/11/2006 2:21 AM )

I think we agree on more than we disagree on.


gadestring said...


I have a question... and I'll give you some background as to where I'm coming from.

You said, "And the moral rules are as strict as ever. If not more so. And that is a GOOD thing."

I'm curious: does that mean everyone under Warren Jeffs' leadership is now required to practice the Law of Chastity as taught to my husband by President LeRoy Johnson and President Rulon Jeffs?

My understanding is that living it was not required -- unless one truly wanted to reach the "higher plane" of salvation in the Celestial Kingdom. It was my understanding that many were not taught this Law, and I KNOW many did not live it. It seemed to be imparted to "a chosen few."

The Law of Chastity (as taught to me) included (in part):

-- Men, you will NEVER approach your wife sexually except for the purpose of procreation (never recreation).

-- Men, you must NEVER approach your wife sexually unless she invites you.

-- Women, you will ONLY invite your husband when you know you are ovulating (in other words, never for the sake of pleasure).

Given the above, the onus, therefore, is on the woman. However, she IS encouraged (even pressured?) to have many children (something I fail to understand entirely... but perhaps I'll save that for another post).

Some issues and conflicts:

-- Once libido is awakened (after marriage vows), this Law is often hard to live and maintain. Placement marriage DOES often lead to "falling in love" and to the natural feelings (instincts, if you will) of desire and wanting to copulate - true of both husband and wife (or wives).

-- There are only a very few days of the month a woman ovulates and if the man has more than one wife, very often the wives are on the same menstrual cycle (which is a very common phenomenon wherever women are living together - even in the "outside world").... well, perhaps you see where I'm going.

-- Let's say the woman is abiding by this Law. Even more, she is also required to abide by the commandment to obey her husband (obey him as he is obeys the priesthood). He approaches her sexually (against the Law of Chastity)... what is she to do?

-- The other way around: she invites him to have sex with her when she "knows" she is not fertile. How is he (or anyone) to know she is not ovulating especially if she is "enticing" him?

(By the way, the mainstream LDS church teaches the Law of Chastity too. However it basically says men and women should have no sexual relations except with the person to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded.)

So... rather than go on and on, I ask the question: Does Uncle Warren now require ALL to obey the Law of Chastity as taught by his father and Uncle Roy in order to be considered a faithful follower?

ATAR_i said...

CTR - it was a good reply, and I will rebut by stating that sometimes good laws come from bad situations. Not all new laws are meant to persecute - they are meant to protect.

I understand it is not your perspective that they protect - but please understand - adults having sex with children is a huge no no. If the only way to achieve that is to make it a NEW law - so be it.

That's the objection - my sole objection. Adult men, stop having sex with children!

I realize that the girls do not object, but, you must also realize that they have been groomed to accept, obey and keep sweet. So objections or refusals aren't something that are encouraged or taught to these young girls - and aren't something I would expect a child to do if her parents/community/elders/prophet told her to behave in a certain manner.

If you want to place that sort of thing on a young adult female, it's one thing, but to do it to a child is not right.

But the bottom line - it is, what it is now - the law. It is not mandatory in your faith to marry a child - that has just been a recent practice. Can't you just go back to marrying adults?

gadestring said...


Unfortunately, it is NOT just a recent practice. Many underaged girls have been married to older men as plural wives for at least 75 years.

However, it WAS more the exception than it has (apparently) been since Warren took over FLDS leadership exactly four years ago. Warren's immediate predecessors often presided over such marriages, but they were much more inclined to advise against it.

I agree with you. Stop this practice! It's simply not necessary for salvation! Is God going to condemn any girl (or prophet) for waiting a little longer?

Restraint and moderation is so prevalent throughout so many other areas of FLDS life. Why not in this?

fttc said...


That was an honest assessment and a very good point in question.

Anonymous said...

I do want to be on your side.
But as Ole Abe Lincoln said: "Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my great concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right"

The one man rule is MORE important than any other doctrine, for without legitimate authority, Celestial marriage cannot be lived righteously. It is impossible.

The law of chastity is the same as it was as taught by Uncle Rulon, and Uncle Roy, but the law is not as absolute as you state. Like food, libido can do more harm than good, if not self regulated. All I was ever taught was constraint is to the man, and not necessarily to the woman, (she is only by the rag, and during pregnancy)
Brigham Young said: "The man that enters into this order by the prompting of passion, and not with a view to honor God and carry out his purposes, the curse of God will rest upon him, and that which he seems to have will be taken from him and given to those that act according to principle. Remember it." (JD 9:36)

As for child bearing, I guess I cannot reason with the idea that anyone would NOT want to bring Gods children to earth. One of my mothers had over 16 and she often lamented not having more!

Atari, and gad-
The age difference is not new in "Christian" monogomy either. You just put blinders on instead of facing it. The only thing that has changed is YOUR society, where marriage is not necessary first.

The truth is there have been very very few marriages at all in the last 4 years. Candi and Ruth were both married previously, under the direction of Uncle Rulon. Though the ceremonies were performed by Uncle Warren. fttc keeps saying that Uncle Roy, and Uncle Rulon said they wouldn't do it anymore, but they married under 18's WAY WAY more than Uncle Warren has in the last 4 years. (I cannot name one)

Your argument is based on the argument that Polygny in and of itself is abusive to women, which is bogus. It is fact that before the Roman Empire, All societies practiced it, all the way back to Adam.


ATAR_i said...

CTR - I don't think polygamy is optimal to women, but I wouldn't say it's abusive. Female circumcision is abusive.

So, I won't get all in your face about polygamy, it's a lifestyle choice.

For me, it's about sex with kids.

fttc said...


Do you really think you can compare 4 years of warren (I think it is more like 8, as warren was running things for his father for the last 4 years of his life by Uncle Rulons own words to me, which puts the girls named under warren's responsibility) to 12 years of Uncle Rulon, and 32 years of Uncle Roy? You also forget that warren has been on the run from the law for most of those years. Throw in the fact that the law against these marriages did not exist during Uncle Roy's administration and only for a few years of Uncle Rulon's (about the time warren took over). Is it really that you cannot name them, or that you will not name them?

gadestring said...


Good point regarding 8 years versus 4. However, I personally believe it was even more than 4 years before Uncle Rulon's death that Warren had been "manipulating" his father's mind and actions. I think it goes back much further to when Warren was the principal at Alta Academy in SLC.

I wonder how well-known it is that Uncle Rulon had some mild strokes in SLC - long before the more devastating ones he experienced after he moved to CC.

Anonymous said...

Your background, and the drive by media, makes your skin crawl when it comes to girls and Warren Jeffs. I can understand that. You have very little more respect for a great man named Leroy S Johnson. But ultimately it is a fight between truth and lies, for me.

fttc, and gadstring-
And you thought I had a conspiracy theory? I know a LOT more about it than either of you, for I talked to Uncle Rulon many, many times, and was married during that time, among other things. Are you among those who believe "the Barlow boys" were secretly running Uncle Roy? I could tell you more but I digress because my anonimity is at stake. (And no my last name is NOT Jeffs, or Barlow)


Uncle Ratt said...

I heard someone had a contract out on you and that the FBI were protecting you. Is this true?

fttc said...


Really I couldn't care less who you are. It is enough that you are willing to express yourself on the blog. I am glad you will post as it shows there are differences between those who still believe in Fundamental Mormonism and those still following warren. It helps those on the blog to see that they cannot lump all of us together. There are points you make that I agree with as they reflect the truths we were taught before the religion was hijacked. Then there are the points you make that I can respond to and show the differences.

ATAR_i said...

CTR - could you rephrase - I don't want to misinterpret your response to me.

Anonymous said...

What I was saying was that you had no interest in us, or our religion, before you saw us in the news, and the news only reports through the eyes of "mainstream" Americans, and get their information from apostates. You could not fathom a man having a dozen wives and that being a "moral" thing to do. SO you think you hold the moral high ground before you read past the headline. True?

Leroy S Johnson was a very kind, revered, and magnanimous leader of the FLDS church. He died in 1986. 99.999% of the people who are feeding the media now about how terrible Warren Jeffs is hold Uncle Roy in very high regard. They claim that our religion has been hijacked by Warren Jeffs, or some other man. But if you had read the headlines (And there were quite a few) back in Uncle Roy’s day, you would probably have the same opinion of him as you have of Warren Jeffs.

There were people on food stamps in Uncle Roy’s day. There were young men working on construction sites. There were Jessop’s marrying Barlow’s. There were accidental deaths among children in his day. He taught the "one man" rule in his day. There were many men 'kicked out' in his day. And (for you the most appalling) there were definitely girls under 18 getting married to older men in his day.

I contend that these were necessary (or at least acceptable) and GOOD things in the sight of God. AND benefit innocent children.

The religion has not changed, only people and the opposition has. This is the difference between truth, and lie, for me.


Anonymous said...

Let's see. Myself, Muggsey, and a few others have said things were wrong clear back to Joseph Smith. Lets say 5 people on this blog are taking that view--99.999% would mean that there are 500,000 people posting on this blog.

You're point is easily taken well as meaning that things have been wacky all along; it only furthers our point.

Anonymous said...

Uncle Roy also said "the one following me (refering to the Prophet) WILL require more of you than I have."

Uncle Rulon was our next Prophet, and he DID require a lot more than Uncle Roy did.

Now Uncle Warren is our Prophet, and he also is requiring A LOT MORE than those before him.

It was prophicied that it would happen, here it is.

ATAR_i said...

Actually - that's not true. I've stated many times how I found this board. My family was traveling to the Grand Canyon a couple years ago. We stopped in SLC so I could look inside the temple (yeah - i knew nothing about LDS).

Then, I went looking for the large houses of the polygamous people (which I was sure was a myth). I got as far as Hurricane, but stopped when I heard the Pah Tempe Hot Springs were closed.

My curiosity was so piqued, something in that area was so different from everything I've known that I searched it out on the internet when I arrived back home, and that's when I found the blog, you weren't here back then, this blog had only a handful of posters.

No one I have met in MY LIFE up to that point had ever heard of your group, and I had never read a paper, or seen a news article (other than one article on Tom Green in People magazine (I think) years and years ago). I assumed Tom was an anomaly - and NEVER considered that there were others who lived like that.

Perhaps the religion has not changed, but I do believe some things have.

MORE girls are married younger.
MORE girls don't get a high school education
MORE boys are being asked to leave
MORE men are being kicked out and having their wives re-assigned.

Lastly, I would just like to state that just because people have done it, doesn't make it optimal, or legal. It also doesn't make it wrong, or illegal. So, the argument 'we did it that way in the past' is interesting, but doesn't necessarily mean you did it the right way.

Anonymous said...

How did you hear about the large houses? And why did you become so involved? The bogus news. But you still feel like the anti-polygamy laws are just, and that our religion is bogus. That is what I am saying.

I am not saying you should agree that it is the right way. I am just saying that those who are giving you your information of MORE marriages, and other "terribleness" by Warren still think rather highly of Uncle Roy. I am saying they cannot have it both ways. I have more respect for the 5 of you who never knew Uncle Roy or Warren than for the other 500,000 who did, (OK, slight exaggeration)and still hate him. There is no in between for me. If it was true then, it is true now.


onthestreet said...

CTR: 9/11/2006 2:21 AM

STREET's Reply: Dearest, from the physical to the spiritual, is a continuum. It is like, when one stands before the veil, they are still in the body, but barely, almost out-of-body, and walking in the Spirit. Does that help you?

Thus, Section 4 is indeed about the spiritual, AND the physical, "for all things are spiritual unto the Lord", for God is spirit. Yet, what do you know? He has a body. All things therefore, including the physical) are spiritual unto the spiritual-minded, the wise virgin, those who have NOT been defiled with women (Rev. 14:4).

All other FLDS fokes are NOT FLDS at all, having violated a fundamental, the foundation of society and of worlds (sexual purity). Therefore, they having BEEN of the virgin church and fallen, are the "unwise virgins".

The field is white ready to harvest, both spiritually and physically. However, the physical harverst (the readiness at puberty) is also a spiritual harvest, but ONLY if it is a spiritual union, having been maintained as such.

You suggest that you are no longer married, CTR. There must be a reason for that.

fttc said...


I would like to see the headlines in Uncle Roy's day accusing him of sodomy, child rape, illegal marriages, fleeing from justice, being a federal fugitive, or even being in the FBI's scope, let alone being on the Top Ten list. That statement is a bald-faced lie. Warren could have avoided most of this publicity by facing the law and allowing it to follow its course as did Uncle Roy at the '53 raid. He is a coward and apparently has no regard for the laws of the country he lives in.

ATAR_i said...

CTR - good question. I'm not certain if it was the magazine article on Tom Green so many years ago, or sometime in my life I had heard myths - which I must state - I never believed.

From what I hear, Roy and your other leaders were quite different (although not perfect - no one is) than warren. Not only in leadership style, but conduct, peronality, ability to relate and involvement in their community.

Were you around for Uncle Roy, or are you younger?

I didn't understand the comment 'if it was true then, it is true now' - can you explain.

Anonymous said...

CTR quote

"I am not saying you should agree that it is the right way. I am just saying that those who are giving you your information of MORE marriages, and other "terribleness" by Warren still think rather highly of Uncle Roy. I am saying they cannot have it both ways. I have more respect for the 5 of you who never knew Uncle Roy or Warren than for the other 500,000 who did, (OK, slight exaggeration)and still hate him. There is no in between for me. If it was true then, it is true now."

According to your logic, it is impossible for both mainstream mormons and FLDS to respect Joseph Smith. Apply your logic to a mainstream Mormon--you can't respect Joseph and not respect Mr. Hinkley as the prophet. Apply your logic to the FLDS. It is impossible to respect Joseph Smith and not respect Warren.

Face it, it is possible for people to say they respect the memory of an earlier leader but now don't consider the current leader a prophet.

How do account for Uncle Roy telling a number of people that any man that marries his father's wives is one of the wickedest men there is? The typical reaction I got is to not question what the prophet does. Well, if God intended for me to not question the doings of another individual, why am I not made out of silicon wafers?

Anonymous said...

My friend (I hope), the gospel is so simple so that a child could understand. I agree, all physical things are spiritual, but all things that are spiritual are not physical. Please stop your "harvesting the flesh" stuff. It doesn't sound good. Your words do not express what I hope you are trying to say.

different lies, same truth. But there were stories and lies of him forcing underage marriages etc. And the FBI was involved in the 53 raid.

I don’t know if I want to explain. You seem sinister to me; pretending to be curious, but only far enough to use the info to call in the military. Phishing is what they call it.

Besides, it is just about the difference between me and others who are on my side as far as freedom of marriage, but are on your side in hating Warren Jeffs. It has nothing to do with you.


Anonymous said...


you sit at your computer and spew all this forked-tongue nonsense about purity in the faithful FLDS marriges....But I have a question for you. How can you talk like that when you yourself are not being pure? Are you trying to tell us that Lawrene is just living with you in a purely platonic relationship? I highly doubt it. I know Lawrene. She would have Flora down your neck, along with the media qicker'n you could say "repent from afar". Please at least keep your posts to a minimum, so we dont have to scroll past so much. I think I would read at least a tiny part of them if they were shorter. I mean SHORT. Just a tip, sweetie.

fttc said...


You have made reference several times now to those persons who hate warren. There have been at times some posters who have exhibited a true hatred toward him. They are not the rule of those posting on this blog. Those who have said the most hateful things against him have exhibited at the same time an ignorance in their perceptions. I appears to me that your definition of hate has been skewered like many other words and meanings in the FLDS. I can only assume that you mean that any one who does not hold him in the highest regard is full of hatred for him. It is sad to see you so blind in your passion for him.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I guess you could say I am saying that the mainstream LDS church cannot have it both ways either. I believe that there is only one people earnestly living all of what Joseph taught. and only one man with that same authority.

"Face it, it is possible for people to say they respect the memory of an earlier leader but now don't consider the current leader a prophet"

I do Face it. I do see it. But I cannot justify it. It doesn’t make sense to me, in fact it saddens me. Call me whatever you like. Warren has done nothing opposite of what Uncle Roy would do as far as I am concerned. But believe what you want.

Uncle Roy had unconditional trust in Uncle Rulon; he told those he loved to follow Uncle Rulon. Uncle Warren did; unconditionally.

anon 4:28-
I really, really doubt OTS is Val.

I have known Warren Jeffs very well, for a long time. My defense of him is not blind. Do you not want the FLDS people to STOP following him? Your un-hatred for him doesn’t go that far does it?


fttc said...

Actually my "un-hatred" goes so far that I would like him to openly confess to his followers that he does not have the authority he claims to have. He never recieved the ordinances necessary for him to officiate in position he is held in by his followers. I would like to see him repent of the atrocities he has heaped upon a people that put their full confidence in him. I would like to see the children reunited with their true families. I would like to see his followers happy to take in those family members now considered apostate and treat them as family. I fear for his position before our Father in Heaven. I have seen the hypocrisy he exhibited to gain the position he now has. I would like to see it stop.

Anonymous said...


You sidestepped the question about marrying his father's wives in your last response.

Anonymous said...

ring a round a rosies. Believe what you want, but I KNOW Warren has the authority he claims. I know he did not aspire to his position. And I know that he has done the will of Heavenly Father in his dealings with me, and have no reason to believe differently in his dealings with others.

4:03(silicon wafers)-
I do not know what Uncle Roy said to individuals in private meetings, but I know what Uncle Rulon did. I am not sidestepping, I just hold what Uncle Rulon did in higher esteem than what Winston has spread around since his apostacy. That is simple, and obvious. Question all you want. but dont try to force, or even expect anyone else to.

I apologize if my last post to you was untrue.


ATAR_i said...

It's ok, I'm not exactly sinister, and I have no authority to call in military.

I am a mother of three girls, the sister to a home full of sisters, and a daughter.

I don't think any one act mis-reprsents what you say your about your religion more that your treatment of children (marrige and abandonment).

If Pedophilia and Abandonment of children is not a tenant of your faith, don't embrace it, encourage it, practice it, allow it.

Protect these most vulnerable citizens. Otherwise, people such as myself will fight tirelessly against anything that will slow down the child molestation/abandonment train. If that means IRS, Welfare, Bigamy (all secondary issues to me) so be it.

fttc said...


If warren has always treated you as you say I am glad of it. I don't like to see others suffer. I would like to know how you know what Uncle Rulon said in all his private meetings. And it sounds as if you believe it was Uncle Rulon that married his own wives to warren. Are you sure that is not sidestepping?

Anonymous said...


Winston is only one of five individuals that I have talked to that has informed me about Uncle Roy stating it being against the laws of the priesthood to marry one of your father's wives. I guess all five are "apostate" and not to be trusted; but apparently, they all knew it was wrong and when they saw it, they knew what Uncle Roy said about it and refused to accept Warren doing it. Not all five follow Winston. I'm too young to have known Uncle Roy, but I believe all five men told me the truth about their private interviews with Uncle Roy. The only thing I regret is that it isn't recorded in his sermons.

I also believe Uncle Rulon was off his rocker or influenced by Warren when he stated "It's time to undo this tradition of not marrying father's wives".

fttc said...

Anon 1:10

This is the first I have heard of this. When and where did Uncle Rulon supposedly make a statement like that?

onthestreet said...

It is a fatal blow when you consider a prophet "off his rocker".

Anonymous said...

When Allan Steed married one of Woodruff's ladies.

onthestreet said...

To marry is NOT to defile. James himself married his Father's lady, when Christ the Son of the Father directed him to hold or "behold thy mother". That wasn't a directive to defile her, but to make her part of his family.

The priesthood of God always does right. It is the defiled mind of man that doesn't do right.

Anonymous said...

Which of the 5000 priesthoods always does right?

Anonymous said...

OTS--I know Uncle Roy considered Brigham Young "off his rocker" on some issues.

onthestreet said...

Anonymous said...
Which of the 5000 priesthoods always does right?
9/19/2006 6:46 PM

STREET's Reply: Point well taken. One true priesthood and 4,999 (or so) false. "Ye shall know them by their fruits".

onthestreet said...

9/19/2006 6:47 PM

Oh, I don't know: You also know that he considered him a true Prophet. Man is certainly fallable, but God in the man is infallible. Everyone can accept that.

Anonymous said...

atari said-
"If Pedophilia and Abandonment of children is not a tenant of your faith, don't embrace it, encourage it, practice it, allow it."

I dont, and neither does Warren Jeffs. Your sources of otherwise are tainted by lies.


desert darling said...



Anonymous said...

By a river in Egypt--de Nile

onthestreet said...

9/20/2006 12:15 AM

atari said-
"If Pedophilia and Abandonment of children is not a tenant of your faith, don't embrace it, encourage it, practice it, allow it."

CTR: They're describing their own sins. These things, and even the KILLING of their little children at 100,000 per month, in the name of "women's rights", these things are obviously most rampant in their own lives.

Of course, everyone can plainly see that they spew from the gross abundance of their own hearts.

These are the dogs without the wall, spoken of by Christ. Even when they rip the flesh of their own children, they are in denial. It is merely their "liberty to do so, as free Americans".

ATAR_i said...

Silly otty, I was describing warren. Don't you recognize him?

onthestreet said...

9/20/2006 8:28 PM
Recognition is a state of mind. Your mind being only continually on pedophilia manifests your state of mind.

Anonymous said...


If you didn't constantly post toilet talk in your posts, we wouldn't always mention pedophilia. It's obvious you need to get out and do physical work instead of immaculate work by faith alone; maybe a little sweat will rearrange a few of your neurons into common sense.

ATAR_i said...

Boy, introspection is not your high spot - grab a mirror buddy.

onthestreet said...

Anonymous said (9/21/2006 8:45 AM):
Street: If you didn't constantly post toilet talk in your posts, we wouldn't always mention pedophilia. It's obvious you need to get out and do physical work instead of immaculate work by faith alone; maybe a little sweat will rearrange a few of your neurons into common sense.

STREET’ Reply: There you have it fokes: Another confession that the lies about the Prophet are NOT TRUE, but rather have come “BECAUSE OF THE TALK”. Furthermore, if you replace the immaculate and the faith, what is left? The opposite of immaculate if filth, and the opposite of faith is faithless. Then, your “works” have come to naught. It is the “common sense” that is so common, cheap, but the gem that is so rare.

muggsey said...


I think that ots and CTR are attempting to accomplish something with their cranium that is atatomically impossible, so there has to be another explanation for their blindness.

onthestreet said...

Ahh, blindness to evil is good. If ye are not blind to it, it has engulfed you.

"See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil", obeying the Lord to "Come ye out of the world, and be not partakers of her sins":

Rev. 18:

5. And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

6. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

muggsey said...

Well, when are your people going to be worthy to be caught up. Your profits have been predicting their translation for decades.

Every time the date passes that the profit has declared as "the day", he always blames the sheeple for their lack of whatever!!!!!!

If just ONE of their prophesies came true! JUST ONE!

Blind sheep led by even more blind leadership.

Why don't you buy some sheep dogs, they can see better than your profits.

Anonymous said...

de da- Right here in the middle of it. The question is, Why did you go?

Despite what you have heard, there has been no "date" given. For even the angels in heaven know not the time. But there have been prophesies. And none of them will go unfulfilled.

My religion is as plausible as yours, if not more so. I do want to see you with our Savior in the Millenial Reign, and I believe all that can purify themselves of sin can be there. I make no claim to be already worthy. Who can?

Also dont believe these lies that Uncle Roy thought President Young was "off his rocker"

sorry, but I cant seem to kick the habit of ignoring your posts. I was not taught that John the Beloved married Jesus' mother. But I definately agree that marriage is not abuse.


ATAR_i said...

It's not hard to have one prophecy to come true - I could probably achieve that by pure chance. But if you truly are a prophet of God - ALL of your prophecies will come true - no exceptions, whatsoever.

Anonymous said...


Our blindness comes from a common phrase--"You have to believe it to see it" (Maybe I am a little dyslexic)

Anonymous said...


You won't believe Uncle Roy though B.Y. was off his rocker? Why, then, do we need a current "prophet" to undo the teachings of former "prophets" if they are actually consistent with each other?

I talked to a man with a question he brought to Uncle Roy. He had a book with some stuff B.Y and HCK taught, and Uncle Roy told this man to "close that damn book. I know what's in there. Anyone that teaches that stuff is off his rocker"

Quite frankly, I believe if Uncle Roy were to read what Fred Colier put out(hidden sermons of B.Y.), he would have said the same thing about that book.

Anonymous said...

All of them will.

Was that man telling you the truth? Word for word? Or was he or you conclusion jumping?


Anonymous said...

Word for word from a man that saw Uncle Roy as he told it to me (and no, it weren't Winston). I am jumping to conclusions about Fred Colier's book, because it came out after Uncle Roy's time.

The "prophets" haven't been as united as you think they have been. One very obvious case--Uncle John and Uncle Roy taught it was "an abomination and against the laws of God and the Holy Priesthood for any man to marry any of his father's wives, and any man that does so is one of the wickedest men there is". Uncle Rulon supported that at first, but later decided it was time to undo that tradition. Warren later married his father's wives.

There is just one case where a current "prophet" decides that what a former "prophet" teaches is to be changed now.

Why did Uncle Roy consider Joseph Musser a demigod one day, and then decided he was apostate the next? My own grandfather died "full in the faith". Yet now I am finding out he postumously lost his priesthood (or apparently, he lost it before he died, but it was exposed postumously). I want nothing to do with a religion that postumously turns "good faithful men" into devils. It's blatant dishonesty. I don't give a damn about the parable of the wheat and the tares. If religious leaders can't be honest with me the first time, don't give me the B.S. that I was too young to handle the truth, but now the work has progressed to the point the truth can be given. When leaders say "This is how it really is...or no, today, this is how it was, but I haven't been able to tell it for a long time... or no, this is how it really is"--that's dishonesty no matter how you look at it.

Face it, these "prophets" are mortal men and are just as human as any one else. They are no more a demigod than you or I am.

It was a tough day for me to realize that I wasn't so damn much holier than the rest of the world. It takes time to come to grips with the realization that we are really all on the same playing field. And yes, that includes FLDS; they are NOT subhuman "stupid idiots" like some posters like to portray them--they are not demigods either.

muggsey said...

Yeah, right, there is dead proof of tht type of prophesy in Waco and at the Heaven's Gate House and at Jonestown.

Wasn't April 7 or 8 2004 supposed to be "THE DAY?" That's what we were hearing around here, supposedly from the mouth of Warren Jeffs himself. Did you think we wouldn't remember that little mistake? Why do you think all the major news networks were standing in front of the YFZ gate that day?

How long was Rulon Jeffs to have lived? Seems his body is moldering in the grave, and has been ever since he croaked, let's see wasn't that four or five years ago? Go dig him up and see for yourself. I'll bet his corpse is as stiff as a board and dead as a hammer.

If LDS & FLDS failed prophesies were sold for a quarter apiece we could pay off the national debt.

Deuteronomy 18:22

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

You wonder why we, who know GOD are not in awe, nor hold any honor or fear of your prophets? It is because they are not of GOD, they speak not for GOD, but for their own self promotion and the gain of filthy lucre to hold their flock in utter slavery so that they can live in luxury, travel about with $50 - 60 K's in cash in the seat beside them, while traveling about the country in a red Cadillac SUV. That's a real expression of poverty!!!!

They, in their false prophesy, mock the living GOD. And, by your continuing support, so do you.

Anonymous said...

With one lie or another, eventually all prophecies will come true, but with twice as many new failed prophecies that now need explaining away.

feralfem said...

I find it most dispiriting to read the perpetual contempt and denigration in post after post, thread after thread no matter what the thread's topic starts out as - and this especially between mugs and ots. Nearly every topic disintegrates into venomous backbiting.

It's not the least bit useful and certainly not interesting. It's like listening to a couple of boys bullying each other and trading insults out in the play yard. It's absurd.

Am I the only one who feels this way?

Whatever happened to plain ol' "love your neighbor as yourself" and "love your enemy," eh?

fttc said...

Absurdity noted and agreed upon. Muggs mentioned that it keeps the blog going, but is it worth the cost?

ATAR_i said...


This is hard, because I don't like to reveal to much about myself on this board, so I will be intentionally fuzzy on some details, and I apologize.

Recently I stood near the bedside of a young relative, obviously dying. On the closet door of the young relatives bedroom were all the prophecies about how this person would live (prophecies made by the leaders of the group), and what they would do with their life. If the dying person and their family, just had faith God would be faithful.

The family of the dying person was given one option. IGNORE the reality of the situation, DON'T PREPARE themselves for anything other than survival. If they ignore reality - their loved one will live, if they face it, their loved one will die. That's a pretty nasty place to put a family member in - it's unconcenable.

Now, when these prophecies were made, these leaders pretty much knew this person would be better. Not being medical professionals, and based on their understanding of the situation, they assumed they could 'make' these prophecies, they would come true, and they would look good making them, and look good having them come true.

When I mentioned the prophecies to a leader after being completely disgusted with what the family was going through, they denied them altogether (perhaps they should have looked on the closet door for the transcript).

It's easy to make a prophecy, and it's easy to discount a prophecy if it doesn't work out for you. It's a bit like gambling, you use instinct, gut feeling, a little bit of what is already known to be true according to the Bible and voila - you make a prophecy.

These leaders never admitted they were false prophets, and the prophecies were put away after the young person drew their last breath, and it was clear they were gone. Nothing was ever said, and the family suffered immeasurably, and silently.

If you want to ignore a false prophecy and continue believing - you can - you will rationalize, just as these leaders did, or deny, or tork the prophecy just enough to make it valid for another date, and not the one set initially. People, leaders, do it all the time, and very few question it. Questioning it means you'd have to face a reality of your own - that you don't want to face.

If the prophecy was that this person would marry and have a family. The leader made this statement meaning - this person would procreate and live a full life. However, I heard a leader state - 'now she is the bride of Christ', in a subtle attempt to make that prophecy something it wasn't. This leader would never have stood up when this person was healthy and prophecied to the congregation that this person was going to die and be the bride of Christ. The service was all jazzed up, prophecies were for life, and how this person would conquer. It's repugnant to me, for people to prophecy in this manner and rationalize instead of hear a call for introspection.

feralfem said...

fttc 3:18,
Not to me.

I spend more time panning out the absurd just to find the good nuggets from more interesting and lucid posters - like you, fttc... and like atar's post just above... and there are many others, including a number of anon posters.

Opinions, experiences, thoughtful comments are wonderful. I just wish this blog weren't being used as a personal podium for proselytizing and poking.

My 2¢

Fredonia Friend said...

I agree with you both, feralfem and fttc. I too am tired of sorting through the religious ramblings of OTS and a few others.

Maybe we should have a thread called "Post All Off Topic Comments Here."

muggsey said...

My point on this blog has always been to stand firm by the teachings of the Bible. The psuedo use of the Bible by the Mormons is a joke. D&C rates higher amongst mormons than even the book of mormon.

Either JESUS was whom HE claimed to be or HEhe was the greatest fraud the world has ever seen. I choose the first, JESUS is the only begotten Son of God, prophesied again and again in the Old Testement to come at the right time for the purpose of redeeming the world from sin. He came to the Jews. The Jews rejected his message and continued to live under the law of Moses. Therefore, God, loving all of mankind sent missionaries, Paul et al to proclaim the message of the Gospel to the world. The message they preached is complete, without error and needs no further amplification.

Joseph Smith, a narcissistic fraud who because of his lifestyle was often rejected and constantly on the run from persons whom he had cheated, obtained a work, written by Solomon Spalding, with scripture added by Sidney Rigdon, assisted by Oliver Cowdrey and other individuals published the tale as the book of mormon and had the gaul to call it another testament of Jesus Christ.

My entire purpose on this blog is to ensure that anyone who takes the time to read what I say will at least have an opportunity to go to the Bible and test Smith's theories for validity.

There being but ONE GOD, HOLY & JUST, one history of a family, that of Abraham's, who were chosen to be God's people, and despite their continuing rejection are still the holders of that promise.
JESUS the CHRIST, HIS coming prophesied again and again came for a single purpose. That purpose was to redeem mankind. That HE did that for me is my message. I will not be moved.

fttc said...


Perhaps my comments above need to be put into perspective. I have seen you give your testimony over and again. I respect it and your right to do so. There is not a passage of scripture you have quoted from the Bible that has even challenged JS and his teachings. Your interpretation is different than that of those brought up under the teachings of JS. Yet in substance I mostly have agreed with you.

As far as your challenging JS and his authority you have not to me given a valid challenge. You have brought up many charges aimed at his character that have been leveled at him and the work he started but all of them I have seen are old anti-mormon claims that at most leave a person with an open mind wondering who is telling the truth. Both sides lack sufficient hard, tangible evidence to prove anything. Be this as it may, I do not intend to get into a discussion about it now. You and I already did that when I first came on the blog and we agreed to disagree.

I see your responses to Steet, who you acknowledge as at least somewhat mentally unstable, as an attempt to paint the entire FLDS by his brush. Those more familiar with the FLDS history and dogmas than yourself have repeatedly said that he does not represent the true FLDS doctrine on most points. Even CTR has a problem giving him any credence. Then to say that you are using your responses to him to defeat the teachings of the FLDS or JS is futile.

As you posted before you have as much right as anyone here to post your opinions and thoughts, I have no intention of trying to limit you in that privilege. (I have a scroll wheel on my mouse that makes skipping very easy.) But your reasoning above does not make sense to me. And as someone else said here, you are fighting an unarmed foe in Street.

muggsey said...


I do agree with the statement that ots is an unarmed foe. It seems that he takes greatest pride in attempting to take some bits of numerology, little thesis concerning events in the cosmos, items wor which neither he nor any other person has a real understanding and thus allows his attacks to become so circuitous that to make sense of his rantings is impossible. But, that may be his whole intent. "If you can't dazzle them with logic baffle them with B.S."

The two greatest objections I find to ots's posts are his blasphemous remarks concerning the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ and his "cute" little attempts to make "potty mouth" remarks in order to allow his rantings to be posted. His attempts to hide meanings behind intentional spelling has escaped no one's grasp of understanding.

I presume him to possess a high education, perhaps even a doctrate, but, his attempt to skew Biblical text into meaningless verbiage may quickly be determined to just try to cloud up the issue.

Anonymous said...

Just so you dont think I deny the truth, I give a word about the April 2004 exodus prophesy. It was invented by some anti-FLDS. We found out about it the same way you did, by noticing the Cameras, and reading the paper.
Same with the Y2K, the 2002 Olympics, and the old "gather at the garden", and "gather at Berry Knoll" stuff.


Anonymous said...

atar-i, re. your comments of 9/25.
I realy doubt ots has A docterate,
but Im confident he has A BS. degree.

remark by Bluebeard.

ATAR_i said...

Whooooaaaa Nilly!

That was mugs NOT ME!

I would never assume ots has a doctorate, not a four year degree or even a two year degree.

I do think he might have graduated high school, but definately NOTHING beyond that!

Anonymous said...

heh heh... Atar, I think Bluebeard meant a degree in BS (otherwise known as BullSh*t).

ATAR_i said...

Yeah I got the BS part : )

But it was mugs who made the initial comment about the doctorate - I don't think I want myself even loosely associated with that thought.

Anonymous said...

atar-i, I have sinned, please forgive me.

humbly, Bluebeard.

ATAR_i said...

LOL, I pardon you

: )

Anonymous said...

atar-i, that was easy, perhaps we should vote for you as prophet,forgivness would be a part of the gospel again and who knows, a lady prophet may get some interesting revalations concerning the practice of the princaple!
some thoughts from Bluebeard.

PS. think of the money!

muggsey said...

I did say doctorate didn't I? I did not say that it was from any accredited university.

You can obtain a Bachelors, Masters, Doctorate certificate of degree over the internet, or if you have the right program and knowledge plus some sheepskin and quality ink + a good printer you can possess any degree you choose. OTS had at the least a PhD. (piled higher & deeper)

OTS seems to have abandoned the bully pulpit. Truthfully, I will miss the exchange of points of view, but not the lewd and vulgar attempts to be cute, nor especially his blasphemous remarks about the LORD.

He will have to answer for those.

ATAR_i said...

Bluebeard, what a sweet sentiment.

onthestreet said...

MUKKY: 10/02/2006 6:38 PM


Booo in the Blue, like a stone in your shoe. Who will it be when the Lord comes to see? Nations destroy, while you are but a boy. Denying the faith that thou once held with joy. Awakened from bone, to God's judgement atone. No glory so high, for again thou doth die. This is the law, revealed from on high.

onthestreet said...

muggsey said (9/21/2006 9:47 PM):
Well, when are your people going to be worthy to be caught up. Your profits have been predicting their translation for decades. Every time the date passes that the profit has declared as "the day", he always blames the sheeple for their lack of whatever! If just ONE of their prophesies came true! JUST ONE!

STREET's Reply: There have been many ascentions. I am witness. Paul "knew a man who ascended to the third heaven", yet remained mortal. Prophecies fulfilled.

So much, brother, that you just don't know.

muggsey said...

see a psychiatrist, you're delusional.

onthestreet said...

And the Jews saith unto Pilate: "He hath a devil".

muggsey said...

Ah, self confession!

onthestreet said...

If I "have a devil" like unto Jesus, I am in truly good company, and I confess.

muggsey said...

Each time that GOD has confronted the devil (Satan), Satan has been rubuked. So, it becomes obvious that the jews were refering to Satan, their companion, not Satan accompanying Jesus. During HIS Satanic temptations in the wilderness, following HIS baptism, JESUS rebuked SATAN repeatedly. HE would not allow Satan in HIS presence.

GOD allowed the Roman Government, with the support of the Jewish Temple leadership, to bring charges against Jesus. Pilate found him innocent. However, He surrended HIM to be crucified in order to satisfy the blood lust of the High Priest and Scribes.

JESUS died on the cross. HE bore ALL the sin of the world, past, present and future. GOD in heaven turned his back upon JESUS on the cross. At that moment JESUS became sin. In HIS anguish HE cried out "MY GOD, MY GOD, why have you forsaken me?" GOD cannot look upon sin without destroying it. With JESUS DEATH all prophesy concerning the coming of the LAMB of GOD that takes away the sin of the world was fulfilled. When JESUS gave up the ghost, (died a physical death) sin died with HIM. He took upon HIMSELF all sin for all time and there on that cross sin died. JESUS had completed the very task for which HE had come to earth in flesh. JESUS physical earthly body of flesh and blood died at that time, but on the third day the physical was transformed into a spiritual body, rose from the grave and appeared to his appostles and Mary Magdalene.

In all ways HE appeared as HE had while in HIS physical body, but now, in HIS spiritual body HE was not subject to the physical laws of this world. HE could appear, and disappear at will. HE was recognized by all the diciples except Thomas who was absent, but who upon seeing HIM in a later confrontation cried out "MY LORD and MY GOD" and fell to his knees to whorhip HIM.

JESUS met those same diciples in Galilee and sat on the sea shore and ate a meal with them.

This same JESUS has promised HIS own personal return for HIS brothers and sisters, HIS BRIDE, joint heirs with CHRIST. When? I don't know. I hope it is soon. I am ready to meet HIM and be reunited with those who have gone on before.

onthestreet said...

You may indeed feel "ready", but is He ready to choose you? "Thou has not chosen me, but I chose you", He told His disciples. No corrupt thing can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

muggsey said...

Thank GOD I am not the judge. But then, neither are you.

onthestreet said...

See, but God is, and God judges. He also has decreed judgement will be given to His elect (Dan. 7):

21. I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;

22. Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.