Wednesday, September 13, 2006

REID CALLS FOR FEDERAL TASK FORCE TO INVESTIGATE CHILD ABUSE AND POLYGAMY

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada sent a letter today to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales suggesting the creation of a federal task force to investigate the interstate activity of the polygamist community in the western United States. In addition, Reid asked the Justice Department to provide any necessary assistance to state prosecutors in the case of polygamist sect leader Warren Steed Jeffs.

78 comments:

gadestring said...

Although he mainly focuses on Warren Jeffs and the FLDS, I appreciate that in his letter to the U.S. Attorney General (Gonzales), Reid includes "the larger polygamist community in the western United States."

"More generally, the federal government should work with state officials to address the broader pattern of serious criminal conduct by all those who use multiple marriages to abuse women and children."

I think it's interesting, too, that Reid is a Mormon.

Paladin for Truth said...

Those that believe in the Book of Mormon and the Gospel it teaches should have nothing to fear

Anonymous said...

fear not death, for all men die. fear not life for all men live. but it is written, "Fear to offend God, for in Jesus and obedience to his laws are the way to eternal life. For the word Mormon means more good. and in the teachings of the book it is written, We believe in being honest, true, Chaste, benevolent, and in doing good to all men......take this away and you have ceased to be a Mormon. death to a rightouse person is but a glorified walk into heaven; but oh how tragic is the walk of an evil man.

ATAR_i said...

Do you think this is a political stunt?

Anonymous said...

This is certanly a political stunt,and its going bite him, just like it did Pyle and Goldwater in 1953.
in my opion.
Bluebeard.

fttc said...

Is Reid up for re-election? I didn't think he was this year. This may be an attempt to stay one step ahead of the opposition to show that he has a handle on the events in his district. It will be interesting to see how far he pushes for an actual investigation. I think this is just insurance against this being an issue in the future. Now he can blame any inaction on the Justice Department.

Anonymous said...

Uncle Roy said in his day:

"YOU ARE NOT FIGHTING AGAINST ME, YOU ARE FIGHTING AGAINST GOD"

That still holds true today.

Uncle Roy also said:

"THE LORD WILL LAY A HEAVY HAND ON THOSE THAT PERICUTE HIS MOUTHPIECE" meaning (THE PROPHET.)

The Lord said that He would fight the battles of an obedient people.

ATAR_i said...

Obedient to whom?

According to whose Bible?

Anonymous said...

The Attorney General should pursue FLDS and the UEP trust with the RICO statutes. Warren Jeffs is a pedophile, anyone that assisted or financed him is a pedophile. In my opinion, anyone over 21, that has sex with someone UNDER 21 is a pedophile. Attorney General Gonzales should confiscate all assets held by UEP trust and all personal property owned by FLDS male members suspected of having multiple wives.

Anonymous said...

the question has been asked about obedience from the begining of time; the answer...obedience to the principles of the gospel. the law of christ.

ATAR_i said...

There was a dateline NBC on last night about a girl age 23, Debra LaFave, who had sex with a 14 year old boy. She is considered a 'sexual offender'. Her sentence was house arrest 3 years, probation another 7, she thinks she should be in jail. See a poll of over 13,000 weighing in on wether her punishment fit the crime.

Personally, I think the poll wasn't written well.

The question - Did the punishment fit the crime?

'yes it did'
'no, it did not'

Technically if you answer 'no, it did not' - you could mean two completely different things.

1. the punishment was too harsh
2. the punishment wasn't harsh enough

I think they meant 'no,it did not' to mean - that punishment wasn't harsh enough - she should have been punished harder (I watched the interview, and that was the gist of the questions). But, they didn't write it that way - so I don't think the results mean anything.

But, I point this out because I want the FLDS to realize that the US takes having sex with kids very serious - even if your a cute blonde 23 year old, and the boy 'wanted' it. It's not an FLDS issue.

Anonymous said...

Interesting example Atar_i. Although LeFave's case is entirely relevent to the case at hand, I feel that Warren's case will be handled a bit differently.

A 23 year old woman has sex with a 14 year old boy, the punishment is 3 years house arrest, 7 years probation..........
and you say "the US takes having sex with kids very serious"????

What? Do you really consider 3 years of house arrest "taking the issue seriously?

Given your logic in relation to the Debra LaFave case, if Warren Jeffs receives 6 years of house arrest from his two rape as accomplice charges, justice is served.

I would have thought that your punishment would have been a bit harsher.

We'll see if his punishment is in any way comparable to LeFave's.

That will provide us with an insight as to whether Warren's case is an "FLDS issue".

ATAR_i said...

Actually, I voted that her punishment wasn't harsh enough. I think they were lenient on her because she was attractive, young, and told everyone she was wrong and she shouldn't have done it.

While I'm glad she admits she was wrong, I don't think her sentence was equitable to similar cases.

Mary Kay Letorneau's sentence was quite a bit harsher. She lost all of her children, and went to prison for years. When she came out, she didn't change and was caught with Villi again - her punishment was even harsher after than the first time.

So, the circumstances were somewhat similar, an adult female with a child, however, the sentences were quite different. I suppose you have to take into account evidence, defense attorney skill, prosecutor skill, the judge, and a bunch of other variables. But from the outside looking in - her punishment seemed appropriate - and LaFaves didn't.

I was just pointing out a case in the news to dispell the notion that the only reason they are coming after your men is religious.

I'm actually suprised that it went on for so long without any attention. I honestly think the attention on adult/child sex is good, I think it was starting to be a common pattern, and it needed to stop.

Adults having sex with kids is not good, it's never good. If someone wants to argue that it happened at some point in history therefore it's ok - that argument is easily countered.

People wore loin clothes, burned people at the stake, bathed once a year, had slaves, and any number of other common practices. The bottom line is - it's not common practice, nor is it legal NOW. It's not because someone is singling you out - it's because sex with children is happening - and people won't ignore it once they learn of it.

Anonymous said...

and in peonix in the news there was a raid on a house of prostitutes who did force young girls into this horrible pratice and there was only a slight thing about it on the news. You people are hypocrits. Why not clean up your own city's. and your own minds. Because Warren Jeffs is inacent of sin.

muggsey said...

Saying that the boy was interested is a cop out. Having been, at one time, a thirteen-fourteen year old boy it took absolutely no effort for a pretty female to make me interested. That reaction is as normal as breathing. At thirteen your hormones have gone absolutely nuts. I would have probably been too embarrassed by my 'physical' condition, created by attention from as pretty a woman as Debra LaFave to perform well but, recuperative power is pretty strong at that age!

And to think that I, at thirteen, could have that kind of impact on a woman of 23!!!!!! Wow!!!!! it wouldn't take too much encouragement. I'm not saying I would engage in the activity, I'd just be excited by the prospect.

I am just being honest about me, I don't know about you, nor would I hazard a guess. All I can say is that from the guys I grew up with, my thoughts would be considered about normal

Anonymous said...

"I was just pointing out a case in the news to dispell the notion that the only reason they are coming after "your" men is religious."

"Your" is not the correct term, I have never indicated that I am, have been, or ever will be FLDS. Don't assume too much.

muggsey said...

vukhdTo state that the sexual interest of a thirteen year old boy is license for an adult to seduce, any boy, is to me a form of sexual abuse by the adult.

The sex of the child is immaterial. Adults who seduce adolescent boys or girls are in effect child molesters and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Just because the perpetrator is female and pretty is no excuse. If a male is adjudicated guilty for an act against an under aged girl then the same judgement should be rendered against any female who would purposfully engage in that same activity with an under aged boy. They should both be subject to the same strict rules of sentencing.

To say that the boy is not affected in the same way as the girl is obvious. She may loose her maidenhead, a somewhat painful and unforgetful experience. She too may become pregnant as the result of the act.

Affect upon the boy is more difficult to determine. Since he, in all probability, will carry nothing but the possibility of contracting a STD from contact with the woman, lifetime affect is impossible to measure.

The real issue is that if the boy in question had not yet reached puberty would have the woman been interested in him sexually? I doubt it. How would the pre-pubescent boy view the sexual overtures by the older female? He would be confused. His hormones have not begun their dynamic effect upon the boy's libido.

The opposite is true with the boy who has attained puberty and therein lies the challenge.

Were this thirteen old boy to make overtures to his thirteen year old neighborhood girl both he and the girl, if caught, would face the wrath of their parents, be forbidden to see each other again etc. If the activity was not discovered it might continue for a while uninhibited. The consequences in all probability would have less effect on either of them than would occur if they were seduced my a mature adult. They both might remember the incident(s) as a happy learning experience.

The mature adult is responsible to guard his/her passion in order to protect the innocence and chastity of the young. To do otherwise is barbaric.

Anonymous said...

Who said that a young person had to be 18 before they could be mature enough to make decisions?

The Lord did not say this.

This is a law of man, NOT GOD. Are we not ALL GOD'S Children? We certenly did not create ourselves. Than we should be following HIS laws, NOT man's laws.

So what if a young aduld get's married before they turn 18, It should be their choice, NOT A BUNCH OF STRANGERS WHO THINK THEY KNOW BETTER.

Mormon Creed "mind your own business!"

ATAR_i said...

To the anonymous poster - I was clearly using the word 'your' men to the women and men of FLDS. The post might have addressed some questions you asked - but the post was NOT specifically addressed to you.

If it is not specifically addressed to you 'anon 2:53' (for example - that's a made up time) - it's not specifically for you - so don't assume so much.

Mugs - If you'll notice the 'wanted it' parts was in quotes.

ATAR_i said...

7:57, It didn't make big news, or was nothing done about it? Those are two very different things.

I am not a hypocrite. I have a value that sex with children is wrong (this also happens to be the law). This is not pretend, and my private and public life reflect this.

But no matter what I say to you, you always spew hatred from your mouth.

I hope warrens love is worth the sacrifice of your own tongue.

Lorraine said...

I thought only the leader was supposed to have to sacrifice anything.

Lorraine said...

I thought only the leader was supposed to have to sacrifice anything.

Lorraine said...

Hey, atar_i, I see you like Dan Brown stuff. Can you get someone to start a thread on that Da Vinci stuff?

muggsey said...

atar_i

Exception in quotes noted. I'm in your camp. I just wish my fingers could spell as well as my mind. I see typos and spelling errors everytime I post, to my horror.

ATAR_i said...

Lorraine - I like Dan Brown stuff strictly from the point that it is great fiction.

And I cannot believe there is not a blog for DaVinci code - so I did a Google search and this is the first one that came up (there was a bunch).

http://davinci.thelife.com/

Let me know if you like it - I don't have time for any more blogging

Anonymous said...

This has got to stop!

CTR

Anonymous said...

hey guys having a husband who has been FLDS and I am Mormon did not make it right for his brother to molest our oldest daughter sexual abuse of a child is wrong by an adult no matter who the adult is. or what there religion man's law may judge them here but God will judge them and I don't believe he will be leinent. Do you? Vengance is his, but we cannot let sexual predators run around and prey on our children. It just is not right.

muggsey said...

CTR

"This Has Got To Stop" is a spoof well taken. We monogamists have had the tables turned. I was not at all devistated by the claims of the blog. The only problem is that the claims are so general one would believe that ALL monogamists practiced the same acts that polygamists are accused of doing. I suspect that these statements bear some truth. Unlike the polygamists I am willing to admit that I live in an imperfect society. I do what I can to correct the errors as I am able to address them. Do you do the same?
The last dog to bark is the last bark heard.

fttc said...

CTR- That site was a hoot! And I thought you had lost your sense of humor.

Muggs makes a good point. There are those in the FLDS that are in denial about what is wrong. The teachings of Christ about casting the first stone need to be applied to all of us. At the same time should we let all the criminals go free because the rest of us are not perfect? I don't think so.

ATAR_i said...

OK - that was funny!

ATAR_i said...

Come join us for breakfast

fttc said...

Ok. Now we're even. By the way, what's for breakfast?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, at 9/15/2006 1:07 AM said

Who said that a young person had to be 18 before they could be mature enough to make decisions?

The Lord did not say this.

This is a law of man, NOT GOD. Are we not ALL GOD'S Children? We certenly did not create ourselves. Than we should be following HIS laws, NOT man's laws.

So what if a young aduld get's married before they turn 18, It should be their choice, NOT A BUNCH OF STRANGERS WHO THINK THEY KNOW BETTER.

Mormon Creed "mind your own business!"


Hey sport, this law (of 18 year old maturity) may not suit you, but it is the law of the land in America. If you don't like this law, then simply leave America and go find a country that has a law that suits you.

You are certainly free to go. If you decide to stay, then you must abide by the laws of the land, or risk being arrested, prosecuted and spend time in jail.

Hey, it's your choice. Do what you want to do. Isn't freedom in America GREAT?!?

American Creed: "Mind our laws!"

ATAR_i said...

My personal favorite is thick strips of bacon, with seasoned potatoes cubed (I have my own special mix of spices), some soft boiled eggs, fruit, fresh coffee and juice.

I'm not at the THAT ranch - so you can't go there for my breakfast.

I also love corned beef hash, and biscuits and gravy - my family doesn't care as much for that, so I don't make it as often.

What are you serving fttc?

fttc said...

Waffles with fresh cut peaches or strawberries and mounds of whipped fresh cream.

I like the biscuits and gravy also, but my family is the same as yours in that respect. I'm working on them though.

onthestreet said...

ATAR_i said (9/14/2006 2:13 PM)
Obedient to whom? According to whose Bible?


STREET's Reply: Tar, Nonny was quoting there what the Lord has said regarding the disobedient. So if the Lord is speaking, then it would be disobedience to the Lord. Pretty simple.

Whose Bible? THE Bible. The Holy Bible. Again, pretty simple.

ATAR_i said...

So, in other words NOT the D&C, NOT the BOM, not any FLDS prophet revelations.

Pretty simple.

So who is being obedient according to the Bible. I am obedient to the BIBLE - I am NOT obedient to the others.

So that means, according to poster that God is fighting with ME.

Pretty simple right?

onthestreet said...

Pretty simple.

Anonymous said...

you must remember atari; the bible is an account of a people. in its pages are a record of what God did with the faithful and the unfaithful. what was it they was faithful or unfaithful too. in the bible is the ten comandments. if you follow this law and having no other law that you made a covnant to obey; God will smile favorable upon you. there are no deciet in the gospel. there are basic principles written upon its pages. but read the writings of James carefully. for in it he did ask of God. and there are some honest hearted people left upon the earth. so if you honestly seek; ask of God. read your own bible. and ask him who you should obey. for the law of Christ is also very simple.

ATAR_i said...

Not AGAINST me.

muggsey said...

Read Hebrews from several translations, starting and finishing with the King James version, if that is your desire. The entire book shows the shortcomings of the law and the sacrifices made of man for deliverance from the penalty of the law. A better and more perfect reconcilliation is provided in the perfect person of Jesus, the Christ, who came in human form, lived and taught a fulfilled and completed law and then provided the supreme sacrifice in atonement of man's sin forever. The law was imperfect, God's sacrifice was perfect and Jesus' victory over death and the grave gives man a hope that until that time was conditional upon the law. The law is not dead, it is fulfilled and therefore made perfect. Therefeore, those who through their faith place their etermal life into the hands and care of a loving, forgiving God, who have been washed in the blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, will never perish, but have life everlasting. This new life in God's hands is not conditional but eternal. For whosoever has trusted themselves into God's hands will never be lost.

Why, Oh why, will you cast aside a perfect salvation and turn your back upon God's perfect Gift, HIS GRACE, for the forgivness of YOUR sin? Can your trust in your own continuing goodness ever equal the once, for all, GIFT of THE LOVING GOD?

Anonymous said...

but, remember that you have to throw off the old you and take on a new one, walking with christ. Or in other words, forsake all your sin and walk as Jesus did. Loving all. for when a person is reserected they are who they are. Just make sure that you can live with yourself. that is probably the hardest lesson in life. For when you are looking at other's and there sins; you are not looking at you. take no man's word; ask of God. God is the judge. can you say that a man has power to speak on your condition. that is why God gave all men a conciense. if you have pleasant feelings and know God personally then you can be assured that you are pleasing him. and God has prepared a place for all men. for it is written; what you do is what you become and what you become is what you are, and God has prepared a place for all men. The rightouse and the wicked. but then in the celestial world there is no power for an evil man to hurt or plunder. and the rightouse rest from there trouble. so read with the intent of God's veiw.....not men who slander other's and speak upon words for personal grandisement. and we are all upon a path. and read corahore, who said that an angel did come and tell him there was no christ. and in his words was his deciet. for the devil does flatter until a person is bound in his own sin; and what is he? the teachings of christ, free a person unto eternal joy. and to think that there is no penilty for sin is perpostrious!

onthestreet said...

9/19/2006 1:30 PM

There you go, Muk.

muggsey said...

1:30

You proclaim that 'I' must "throw off" the old me. I can't, you can't, not a living or dead person can or was ever able to do it on their own. But, I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. Only by the power of Christ am I clean and restored to the same status as Adam before the fall.

The Hebrew nation has tried since Abraham, their earthly father, to gain perfection in God's eyes. they have failed in their effort because they continue to try to do the impossible, like a small child who doesn't understand the impossibility of lifting or moving a heavy weight is impossible. So is any effort we make to impress God with our being good (by our own standards). Those children are trying in their strength alone. The task is impossible for you too, regardless of how many times you are "born on a new planet" to try again.

Jesus died once, for all. Accept or reject. That is the only option you have.

I am not the judge. God is, but, I can inspect fruit. "For by their fruits you shall know them." I don't see many good fruits being produced when I look your way. The ones (fruits) for which you hold such pride will disappear as you appear before the judgement. I'm not looking back to see if I am bearing fruit or not. I don't have time to dwell on the past. The future is too bright and the promises of my Savior too wonderful to worry about what could have been. To do that, my friend, is a lesson in futility unending toil toward a task that can never be accomplished.

onthestreet said...

Look Les, just because people don't believe your unending toil toward your hatred for virtue and a virtuous people, does not mean they do not accept the Lord Jesus Christ. They do, and probably much more so than you. The constant need to harp on our Lord Jesus, while at the same time crucifying what is sacred, is very telling, and what Christ declares that He will tell in the end:

"Depart ye cursed, I never knew you".

ATAR_i said...

1:30 that statement came after your post, but was intended for street - it must have seemed out of place. My apologies.

muggsey said...

Salvation is Jesus Christ, and NOTHING ELSE!

Answer to Thomas' request:

JESUS SAITH UNTO HIM, I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE: NO MAN COMMETH TO THE FATHER, BUT BY ME. John 14:6

and to Philip

JESUS SAITH UNTO HIM, HAVE I BEEN SO LONG TIME WITH YOU, AND YET HAST THOU NOT KNOWN ME PHILIP? HE THAT HATH SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER; AND HOW SAYETH THOU THEN SHEW US THE FATHER?

BELIEVEST THOU NOT THAT I AM IN THE FATHER, AND THE FATHER IN ME? THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU I SPEAK NOT OF MYSELF: BUT THE FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME, HE DOETH THE WORKS.

BELIEVE ME THAT I AM IN THE FATHER, AND THE FATHER IN ME: OR ELSE BELIEVE ME FOR THE VERY WORKS' SAKE John 14: 9-11

I make the same claim. The Father is in me and the works I do, are not mine , but the Father's who dwells within me. Therefore, the Father receives the glory and not me. I need no glory, I am unworthy. Glory belongs to God, not Man.

I, you, all of us who sin had and have a part in crucifying the Lord Jesus but, Praise God, to those who will believe He, Jesus the Christ has taken upon himself our sin and it died upon the cross with him. My praise comes about as the result of my deliverance from sin.

In the cross of Christ I glory, and not I, but Christ in me.

muggsey said...

Be as virtuous as it is possible for you to be. I applaud your virtuosity. My point is now and always has been that it is not your virtue that will get you past the judgement seat of Christ. Virtue is a work. Works will not save anyone. A human can be saved only by the blood of Jesus shed as atonement for the sin of the admitted sinner. You don't admit to sin, you are not cleansed by Jesus' Blood, you do not claim Jesus as your Lord and Savior your name is not written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

This post is meant for ots et. al who believe themselves saved by their works and at the pleasure of their prophet. It ain't so, it never was so, it never will be so. You are the victims of a gross lie.

onthestreet said...

LES: 9/20/2006 5:20 PM

"Faith without works is dead", saith the Lord (James 2:20).

IS GOD A LIAR?

Then, there is no redemption for all such, except to be raised up and judged unto damnation, see. That’s the Word of God.

“Without faith, it is impossible to please God", for the only thing that will please Him is our redemption through Christ.

19. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21. Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22. Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23. And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

26. For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

muggsey said...

ots

The works of people testify to their faith or lack of it. Those who do the works of the devil show that they are of the devil (John 8:34-44; 2 Cor. 11:14-15). Sinners are called to cast off the works of darkness (Rom. 13:12; Eph. 5:11), sometimes called wicked works (Col. 1:21) or the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19). Because sinners cannot save themselves, they must rely on the grace of GOD, not on their own works (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:4-7).

Paul warned against relying on the works of the law as a basis for acceptance by GOD (Rom. 9:32; Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10). Sinners are accepted as righteous before GOD on the basis of GOD'S grace through faith in Christ, not on the basis of their own works (Rom. 3:27; 4:2-6). One evidence of saving faith, however, is the existence of good works in the lives of believers (Matt. 5:16; Acts 9:36; Eph. 2:10; Col. 1:10;
2 Thess. 2:17; 1 Tim. 2:10; 5:10, 25; Titus 2:7,14; Heb. 10:24;
1 Pet. 2:12).

Some people think that Paul and James contradict each other in their teaching about works. James 2:14-26 says that people are justified by faith and works, not by faith alone. However closer examination shows that James used the word "works" to refer to what Paul meant by "good works." James and Paul were dealing with people who wanted to rely on works of the law for their salvation. James was dealing with people who professed to believe but whose lives did not show it. Paul, therefore, emphasized that sinners cannot make themselves acceptable to GOD by keping the works of the law. Dealing with a different situation, James emphasized that true faith shows itself in good works, a point that Paul also made.

onthestreet said...

9/21/2006 3:32 PM
Paul warned against relying on the works of the law...

That's right, the works of the Law of Moses, which are transient like unto yourself. But the works of the Law of God, how can something eternal be transcient?

You, Les, can NEVER justify any excuses for holding God a liar to His word, and His word saith (James 2):

26. For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

9/20/2006 6:10 PM

onthestreet said...

Les, we see that you are searching very deeply for your soul. That is good.

onthestreet said...

MUGGSEY Said (9/21/2006 3:32 PM):
Paul, therefore, emphasized that sinners cannot make themselves acceptable to GOD by keping the works of the law. Dealing with a different situation, James emphasized that true faith shows itself in good works, a point that Paul also made.

STREET’s Reply: Right again. That’s what I’ve been saying to you. The works of the law can save nobody, can they. But the works of God, the good works, are what save mankind. Therefore, when the law presumes to legislate against the spiritual unions of a community of saints striving and yearning for Zion, which takes precedence? The good works and the grace of Christ’s law in the economic and social order of heaven, the united effort of saints working together as brethren, and the abundant creation of life in the FLDS plurality of marriage.

Your perception in this regard is enlightening for others, and hopefully for yourself as well.

muggsey said...

It is you street who calls God a liar, not me. I have given you many verses in reference to clarify the meaning of various kinds of 'works.' YOU have not taken the opportunity to look each of these references up and verify their truthfulness. You presume yourself to be above reproach or error therefore you have pronounced yourself to be equal with GOD. If, in your estimation, you have succeeded in this quest than it would seem that you now have declared yourself to be above Warren Jeffs. Are you his self- designated replacement? If so, I pity the poor souls whom you will lead astray.

onthestreet said...

MUK-SEE Said (9/21/2006 9:11 PM)
It is you street who calls God a liar, not me. I have given you many verses in reference to clarify the meaning of various kinds of 'works.'

STREET’s Reply: A leaf blown by every wind of doctrine cannot “clarify the meaning” of anything, seeing only MUK, SEE? The work of God is far beyond your scrutiny, and God’s word far more than just guesswork and excuses to make it null and void. Everyone has seen how the scriptures of God’s Word continually say precisely the opposite of things you say every day, while you have yet to point out one thing I say, JUST ONE, that doesn’t square perfectly with the scriptures, or that calls out God a liar. So everyone knows; all who possess any intelligence knows. Being one who is continually on the defensive and always combative toward the Word of the Lord, including your denial of the very basics of faith and works, it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to please God or anyone else. You don’t even please yourself, but are a mere dumb brute.

muggsey said...

Hey lead head,

If you would read the Bible instead of that book of mythical trash you would easily be able to tell that there is no one good, not even one. It is GOD who gives opportunities for good works and our assistance in helping propel them forward can only reflect GOD'S glory, the whole purpose for any work to be considered as being good.

Any work done by man, praises man, not GOD, and therefore is not considered as good work but as braggadocio.

"Oh, look at me- - - - - aren't I wonderful? Aren't you impressed GOD? I'm SO gooooood!"

GOD says, depart from me you worker of iniquity, I never knew you.

onthestreet said...

Hey Pud-Mud-Dud:
Though ye be wed, doth not mean that thou hast gotten the lead from thy bed, regardless of what thou hast said or fed unto others who dwell amongst the dead.

However, tis good to see thee copying so much of my writings, my little fiend friend. Do give God the glory.

Anonymous said...

considering the content of Mr. street`s posts, the time at which they are posted,and the discontinuity of thought therin,may I pose the hypothisis that: he is sleep walking?

musings of Bluebeard.

muggsey said...

Bluebeard,

Your analysis warrants careful consideration. Is his sleepwalking a natural extention of his person or drug induced?

Anonymous said...

I believe excessive exposier to high leveles of sacerdotal propaganda can be as mind altering as the chemical hallucinogens.
what say you muggs?

Bluebeard.

muggsey said...

Bluebeard,

I think anyone would be wise to take anything offered by a priest with a grain of salt. The only priest I recognize as authoritative is the LORD JESUS CHRIST. Those who are of HIS family of faith have access to him via the third part of the Trinity, THE HOLY SPIRIT. Why consult with GOD (or whom you HOPE is GOD) through a third party?

Why let mere men interfere? Priests generally serve in a position for the purpose of mind and thought control. The priests themselves may have good intentions but, if they are acting upon the edicts from their ecclesiastical hierarchy for input and decisions then, as often as not, the information or edict self serves the hierarchy.

For many people who depend upon such an arrangement for access to GOD, the declarations and orders from such priests can indeed serve as a comfort and a call to obedience.

The comfort comes from the individual having placed all their spiritual concern and care, and the supposed rewards and punishments for those same concerns and cares into the hands of the priest whom they are taught to obey, whom they believe to be incorruptable. It is as great an escape mechanism as are hallucinogens, and in many ways, more dangerous because in blind obedience to the priest the individual may be stumbling down a dark path toward destruction, being led by a priesthood, terribly mis-directed and thus in process of plunging themselves toward their own just and horrible end while dragging their blinded flock with them.

Woe upon those who lead others into destruction. It would be better if they had a millstone tied about their neck and were drowned in the depths of the sea.

Anonymous said...

Priesthood is God and God is Priesthood.

muggsey said...

10:51

Go ahead and think what you like. You equate the priesthood council (consisting of men) as God? You can't support that belief via the Bible.

GOD is GOD, priests were originally set aside to serve GOD, not to BE GOD. The original priests, in ancient Israel were from the tribe of Levi, the house and lineage of Aaron, and no one else. No one except a descendent of Aaron, Moses's brother can legitimately serve as priest in GOD'S service.

The priest's duties were to offer sacrifices to GOD in behalf of the People of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. A very detailed accounting regarding acceptable sacrifice is recorded in Leviticus.

Only the High Priest, a direct descendent of Aaron was given permission, by GOD'S direct instruction to enter the Holy of Holies on only one day each year, the Day of Attonement. A rope was tied to his ankle so that if his presence displeased GOD his fellow priests could pull his dead body from behind the veil of the Temple, separating the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies.

If the High Priest's offering pleased GOD the priest would exit both the Holy of Holies and Holy Place to appear and stand before the people shouting Hosannah! GOD has heard our prayer and forgiven our sin!

No, GOD does not serve HIMSELF, HE is GOD, priests may serve GOD, but too often they have formed political connections among themselves thus allowing the brotherhood of priests to elevate its position there to rival and displace GOD as the focus of worship.

This statement is in full support of my previous posting concerning priests.

Anonymous said...

10:51

Since what has been done in the name of "Priesthood" hasn't been very God-like, then I doubt the "priesthood" I have witnessed represents God.

If God and the prophet only do right, then if something isn't right, the man doing it obviously isn't God's prophet.

onthestreet said...

muggsey said...
10:51
Go ahead and think what you like. You equate the priesthood council (consisting of men) as God? You can't support that belief via the Bible.

STREET's Reply: Ahh, you see? The Devil can never stand for man ascending above his own glory. Your Lord Himself speaks of God in man, saying: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me". God in the Priesthood on the earth, and the Priesthood in God. You don't claim such Fatherhood over you, which makes you a bastard. There, I supported it via the Bible.

See? Or is it kinda MUKKY. Ahh, maybe you have been MUGGED, or see only a mugging in good men inheriting the earth, and obtaining much. Then you would be true to name: MUGG-SEE.

muggsey said...

lead head;
your thinking is so convoluted and unsubstantiated it's not worth the time wasted in an attempt to answer.

You would know more about the devil and his processes than I, since he is your constant confidant and companion.

onthestreet said...

Ahh, your cabulary so stuck in the Muk, like lead in your bed, and in your pants, that whenever reason and truth throw you, suddenly is it "SO CONVULUTED and UNSUBSTANTIATED. Yet, what doeth thou? It is "not worth the time wasted to answer, so you waste away answering. The devil does not companionship with the truth that stings, and I see that it stings you right in the BUTT.

muggsey said...

RE-BUTT

Can't you come up with an unique and wholesome vocaublary to express your convulsions? Must you copy my "stuck in the muk" as you claim?

onthestreet said...

LOL: See, it stung ya again in the butt. Thus, your "RE-BUTT".

Your "vocaublary" is starting to sound more like mom's caubler. Which was your favorite, peach or cherry?

muggsey said...

Do you mean cobbler or is English a foreign language?

onthestreet said...

Each letter possesses light, and many light are close kin. Therefore are they similar. How many nine-letter words can you find that possesses five Samechs? Here is a hint. It is inclusive.

muggsey said...

I'm sure you have a program on your computer capable of dreaming up all types of mystic and false bologna. I'll bet the readers of this blog understand my English better than your attempts to impress others with all your linguistic skills in unknown tongues. Who cares anyway?

onthestreet said...

You make my point to a tee. Cheers.

Anonymous said...

If streets pointing out the origin of words is what early Mormon brethren did when "talking in tongues", Lord help us!

onthestreet said...

Tongues and firey serpents ascend back to the adamic language and the source from whence the gift emanates, the grace of spirit element. Then the Lord will help you.

muggsey said...

Adamic language? Akin to Liliputian?

onthestreet said...

As you wish.

muggsey said...

Can you identify Liliput's location? What language is predominant? What event of some import in Liliput's history resulted in a memory the events being lodged in the mind of some persons of letters?