Monday, November 20, 2006

UEP Meeting Today!

7:00 Hildale Town Hall

Warren's Trial Tomorrow


Anonymous said...

Warren Jeffs has been recording personal visits ever since 1998. I bet his trial you will see a video of the wedding and watch "Do you do this of your own free will and choice" Of course we all said we did... any private visits of course were recorded, so this girl may be in for the surprise of her life.

Anonymous said...

So much for priesthood garment "protection"...


Do as I say, not as I do...
How can anyone take this hypocrite seriously. Willing to compromise his "beliefs" to save his own ass. So much for his uncompromising stance.

Anonymous said...

What time tomorrow is Warren's trial? Where is it being held?

Anonymous said...

Thanks anon 4:47. Great Links.

Looks like Warren put his butt before his beliefs and teachings...again.

Anonymous said...

anon 10:22

Saying the words "Of your own free will and choice" doesn't automatically mean that the people involved were exercising their agency. There is a word that describes the way many of the marriages were performed. That word is 'duress' and it has some very strong legal implications. The very fact that the girls involved were minors gives great weight to the possibility that they were manipulated, threatened, coerced, or placed under duress. Besides, even if a minor agrees to something illegal, her agreement does not relieve the adult parties from responsibility.

Warren's problem is he really thinks he is a prophet of God, and he thinks he is above the law. After all, in his circle of friends, he is the judge,jury, and executor. His illusions have him in a bit of trouble.

ATAR_i said...


I wasn't sure anyone captured a photo of Jeffs in shorts and Naomi in jeans - this is amazing!

What do the faithful have to say about that - can we anticipate a clothing change revelation - or an apology?

Place your bets!

Anonymous said...

A prophet is not always a prophet, but "only when he was acting as such" (TPJS, p. 278).

He has his escape hatches already built.

fttc said...

Careful there. Men have been booted for statements like that. Warren has been clear in his teachings that the Prophet is God. Is it for you to judge when he is and isn't a Prophet? You are treading on very thin ice.

muggsey said...

It should be most enlightening to Warren's flock that he lives by a double standard. Rules that he is so insistant upon, regarding the clothing and behavior of those to whom he claims near diety, are unnecessary as far as he and his immediate associates are concerned.

A great double standard is being flaunted in the flock's face. The question is, will these photographs of WJ, his brother, one of his wives, the red Cadillac, suitcases full of money, disguises etc. have any effect upon Jeffs credibility as "THE PROPHET?" If enough of those who have been sent away gather and form a solid phalanx in opposition against this living fraud, perhaps the whole group can get a handle upon life and be less likely to be suceptable to a fradulent leadership in the future. Let's hope so anyway.

peaches said...

Had a great UEP Meeting, the town hall was packed. Why they don't do it somewhere else is a question.

Any items of UEP interest can be found at I think

The only question I have is if the trustee board is so important and they make the decisions, why weren't they there? I have not met any of them in the last three months. They haven't come to the community events and celebrations and they don't come to the UEP meetings. What is the point of having a board if they don't represent the people???

Anonymous said...


I'm not worried about being booted. I'm not FLDS.

Anonymous said...

what? are you a complete numb-skull. Why do they not come to hte meeting? Do you really think in your wildest dreams that they care about the people? wake up! or are you so blind as to your own folly?

Anonymous said...

muggsy,you have to understand,this was all arranged to "test the faith of the saints",it wont have much effect on people who arent already wondering. oh, by the way, warren, the shorts dont work for you, maybe try jeans with worn out knees? or sweats,? sweats are quite nondiscript, and comfey too.


muggsey said...

By Warren's on orders (to others) his example would be no more horrendous had he shown up wearing a jock-strap and a set of "pasties!" Try wearing that to a priesthood meeting and see if you don't have to "blood atone" on the spot.

Some test for the saints! Any score would rate an F- for the sake of example. DOUBLE-DOUBLE STANDARD- STANDARD. DON'T DO AS I DO, DO AS I SAY. ME HEAP BIG CHIEF PHONEY ONE.

Anonymous said...

Muggsey you are a moron sometimes. Name one person that has been Blood Atoned. Moron

muggsey said...

I don't know what the records say, I just know what I've read from sources that seem to know the system pretty well. What about the LeBaron clan's murder of the Allred prophet? What about the Lafferty murder of his sister-in-law. These groups claim to practice the same thing as does the FLDS and at one time were all followers of Joseph Smith's teachings.

I know that there is a debate as to whether Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The LDS was certainly involved, and you, whether you admit it or not, follow the same basic set of rules and beliefs.

Anonymous said...

anonymous(quick to call someone a mormon),would it be known?if records were kept,would they ever be available? all of ervels'murders were justifide(by him)through man told me ,Rulon informed him,his only hope was blood atonment,but the law wouldnt allow it.

Anonymous said...

Can someone please post a new thread with this link asking for peoples opinion on the article.

Ignorant Blogger

Anonymous said...

"There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.
"I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them....
"And further more, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.
"It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit.... There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, or a calf, or of turtle dove, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man." (Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 53-54); also published in the

muggsey said...

Anonymous post 12/03/2006 8:01 AM

The bottom of your post somehow didn't make it to the blog. I'd like to read the final paragraphs. This post closely parallels the one in the Warren & Naomi post, above. Thanks

Anonymous said...

Muggy, I put this on the wrong thread by mistake, I guess my attempt to delete didn’t work. anyway hears the whole article. Mormon Blood Atonement Fact of Fantasy, Salt Lake City Messenger, April, 1997, Mormon History, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Uta

Anonymous said...

That link doesn't work on my computer. I tried it with and without the "-44k"

Anonymous said...

sorry I messed up, try this

Anonymous said...

When I read this excerpt from article Muggsy referred to, "Mormon Blood Atonement: Fact or Fantasy?" found here,, I felt as though I was reading something that WJ might say. He seems to quote Brigham Young quite a bit.

"On another occasion Brigham Young made this chilling statement regarding a person's obligation to spill the blood of those who committed serious sins:

'Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved... and suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, 'shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?'
'All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant....'
'I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance... if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the Devil... I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them....'
'This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it.... if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind.' (Sermon by President Brigham Young, delivered in the Mormon Tabernacle, February 8, 1857; printed in the Deseret News, February 18, 1857; also reprinted in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 219-220)"

Anonymous said...

Ann Eliza Young, who had been married to Brigham Young, charged that Joseph Smith was guilty of adultery: "Joseph not only paid his addresses to the young and unmarried women, but he sought 'spiritual alliance' with many married ladies... He taught them that all former marriages were null and void, and that they were at perfect liberty to make another choice of a husband. The marriage covenants were not binding, because they were ratified only by Gentile laws.... consequently all the women were free....
"One woman said to me not very long since, while giving me some of her experiences in polygamy: 'The greatest trial I ever endured in my life was living with my husband and deceiving him, by receiving Joseph's attentions whenever he chose to come to me.'
"This woman, and others, whose experience has been very similar, are among the very best women in the church; they are as pure-minded and virtuous women as any in the world. They were seduced under the guise of religion,...
"Some of these women have since said they did not know who was the father of their children; this is not to be wondered at, for after Joseph's declaration annulling all Gentile marriages, the greatest promiscuity was practiced; and, indeed, all sense of morality seemed to have been lost by a portion at least of the church." (Wife No.19, 1876, pages 70-71)
The Mormon Apostle John A Widtsoe admitted that Joseph Smith was sealed to married women, but he claimed that they were not to be his wives until after

TBM said...

Muggsey and Anon 9.26:

Instead of reading what somebody said that somebody said that Brigham Young said, why don't you read the original Journal of Discourses? That way, you'll get it in its original format, in its original context. Because, trust me, quoted the way it is, you can make black look like white. And Jerald and Sandra Tanner, the article's authors, are notorious for doing just that. Their book, "Mormonism: Shadow or Reality" (and doesn't that title just imply their editorial standpoint?) was reviewed even by anti-Mormons as "perhaps the most slanted, biased, and down right mean representation of the Mormon church there is."

You may find interesting what D. Michael Quinn, who is very highly regarded as an historian, and is certainly no friend of the LDS church, wrote of the Tanners' methods:

* selective use of evidence ... the Tanners choose only the most negative evidence to portray the "reality" of Mormonism and its history, while ignoring evidence or entire issues that do not support their interpretations

* a distorted view of the historical subject is a deception ... The Tanners are guilty of such distortion as they seek to repudiate Mormonism by applying inflexible standards of criticism that they seem unwilling to apply to the rest of sacred history

* A classic weapon of debate and polemics (ad hominem argument) is employed repeatedly by the Tanners ... In presenting the weaknesses and foibles of Joseph Smith and other Mormon leaders, the Tanners write as though these were hidden secrets that they have been able to dredge up. On the contrary, the published revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants frequently condemn Joseph Smith for lack of faith, cowardice, and other sins for which he is commanded to repent

* they often make assertions and draw conclusions without referring to evidence that qualifies, challenges, or refutes their argument

* the Tanners are often guilty of a classic misuse of parallels in historical analysis: because Item Y resembles Item X closely and because Item Y existed in point of time after Item X, then Item Y necessarily or obviously derived from (was copied from, was influenced by, etc.) Item X

* they further distil their distortion through their bizarre editorial style. First is their use of ellipses ( . . .). For example (on page 95) the Tanners write that "Joseph Smith certainly had the ability to make up 'new names'," and then quote an account of Joseph Smith's giving a "boy the name of Mahonri Moriancumer . . ." (that is where their quote ends). By consulting the sources the Tanners cited for this quotation, however, one learns that they purposely deleted the following sentence: "When he had finished the blessing, he laid the child on the bed, and turning to Elder Cahoon he said, the name I have given your son is the name of the Brother of Jared [in the Book of Mormon]; the Lord has just shown (or revealed) it to me." The part left out by the Tanners would require the reader to decide whether Joseph Smith could act as a divine revelator, but because the Tanners already conclude that he was a fraud, they eliminate his explanation for the unusual name.

* Jerald and Sandra Tanner have read widely enough in the sources of LDS history to provide that perspective, but they do not. Although the most conscientious and honest researcher can overlook pertinent sources of information, the repeated omissions of evidence by the Tanners suggest an intentional avoidance of sources that modify or refute their caustic interpretation of Mormon history

* [And of the Tanners' tendency to quote and re-quote the same source endlessly] as a methodology such repetition has a more specific function. A certain amount of re-emphasis is necessary for all communication and teaching, but incessant repetition is not designed to persuade by logic, but instead to induce the reader or listener to suspend rational thought in favor of total acceptance

muggsey said...

I have a strong suspicion that if the "Tanners" were proponents of your view of things instead of that which opposes your point of view you would sing their praises and veracity to any who would pay attention.

There are so many "points of view" within the LDS-FLDS cult to cause on-going civil war until the end of time.
Everyone is right in his own eyes, and everyone else is wrong.

My thoughts are this: With my understanding of the GRACE of GOD, none of you, LDS or FLDS or any faction of either, have a clue. Why? Because to attempt to understand GOD'S PERFECT GRACE would cause a rift among those who finally begin to understand and those who want to hold on to their ability to save themselves by being 'good.' We are saved by GOD'S LOVE (GRACE) exercised by our FATH. Our salvation is HIS GIFT, not our reward.

TBM said...

Muggsey: I have a strong suspicion that if the "Tanners" were proponents of your view of things instead of that which opposes your point of view you would sing their praises

Well, actually no, Muggsey, because I'm not like you. Bias and poor research are always irritating to me, because at best, it's sloppy and amateurish. As for willful misrepresentation, I don't like being lied to any more than anyone else. And the right is not served by deceit.

That much said, I'll admit that most Mormon "historical" authors are just as bad. But that doesn't give the Tanners an excuse.

And one more thing, Muggs, I agree completely that we are saved by grace. But first, we have to behave ourselves and be good boys and girls to qualify for the grace of God. Otherwise Adolf Hitler is going to be saved, and that doesn't seem right at all.

Besides, Muggsey, if we're all going to be saved, howcome you keep telling us that we're all going to hell? ;-)

Anonymous said...

tbm, did you major in history? you sound educated. if your a historien, could you point me to some information (without begging the question) that can be bunk the tanners resurch?


muggsey said...

Martin Luther realized it when he was doing pentance on the steps of the vatican. "The just shall live by faith." Over and over again this theme is repeated in the books of Romans, Galations, Ephesians, Hebrews, both books to the Corinthins. The point is that this simple statement is absolute truth. The problem is that you want to complicate the truth by attempting to make yourself good enough to gain GOD's attention so you can qualify for HIS grace. GRACE is a FREE GIFT. You nor I nor anyone else can never become good enough to earn GRACE because IT (GRACE) is a GIFT. DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF A GIFT? It is not something you are worthy of, you receive the gift because someone loves you enough to provide you with something they think you need or would like to have. GOD knows the human heart. HE knows that mankind would like to be reconciled to HIM. He knows that man can never stack up enough good deeds to offset the cost of JESUS' BLOOD on CALVARY'S Cross. This shedding of sacred blood IS GOD'S GRACE. You can't earn it, you can only receive it by faith. Faith is not something you can see, buy or obtain by your merit, it is an acceptance that GOD'S LOVE CAN save you, and will, if you will but trust that love unto salvation. LOVE=GRACE=LOVE It is so simple why complicate it with your own plan? God's plan is perfect. No one can improve upon it!

TBM said...

uncaduff, thanks for the compliment :-) No, I've never studied history formally, though I probably should have. I just know my stuff! Mormon history fascinates me, and researching it is my major pastime. I have entire bookcases full of books and files and pieces of paper, and dozens of bookmarked websites.

What I've found with the Tanners is that they don't actually say anything that isn't true. They just present the facts in a way that gives a totally false impression. They use only the evidence they want to, and just ignore everything else, assuming you won't know any better. Or, to put it simply, they assume you are stupid and ignorant. It's something else that annoys me about them.

The best thing to do with the Tanners' publications is use them for toilet paper. If you do read it, never, ever take their word for it. Always assume they are being less than honest (99% of the time, you'll be right), and check the original documents they're refering to. I've found that if I do that, their argument is almost always much less impressive!

fttc said...


"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." James 2:26

What is your explanaion of this verse? If you only receive Grace through Faith as you state above, where do the works come in?

TBM said...

Why ten commandments, and all that emphasis on being good, if we're all saved regardless?

I guess Hitler's going to heaven. My, there's going to be some really pissed Jewish people up there!

muggsey said...

God won't send you, Hitler or anyone to hell. That my friend is ultimately YOUR choice.

Believe, experience the new birth spoken of by Jesus in John 3:16-17, have faith that Jesus' words are true and have the ability to save you. You see, once again, GRACE is a GIFT of GOD, claimed by your faith and then demonstrated by your good works done with the sole thought of praising him who saved you, GOD HIMSELF.

Read the whole chapter James 2. If you isolate on just one verse you are missing the purpose of the statement. James was addressing a goup of people who claim to be true believers in Jesus but who don't manifest any evidence of this fact in their lives. So James takes the position that faith can only be seen by men, through what it produces in a life. He gives two completely different biblical case histories to prove the point and to show that true faith always produces evidence of its genuiness, The two indivuals represent two distinct applications of faith.

Abraham, ordered of God to offer his son Isaac as sacrifice carries out God's order to the point Isaac is laid upon an altar and Abraham's knife is raised above Isaacs body, ready to plunge downward to take Isaac's life. Why, you ask. This was a test of Abraham's faith. Abraham passed the test because he followed God's command. God had been truthful in the past. He gave Abraham and Sarah, both past normal child bearing age a son, Isaac, the son of promise. If God had done that what seemed impossible in the past why wouldn't God be able to either provide another sacriffice or, if Isaac indeed died, God would give him another son to take Isaacs place.

One would think that after forty years of being righteous you could expect Abraham to show some evidence of his faith--and he did. But faith was the means of his salvation, and works were simply the evidence of the genuiness of it. True faith will always produce works as evidence. But works will never produce true faith. Get the point?

Rahab, the harlot, a resident of Jericho, hid two spies from Israel, who were in danger of being caught by Jericho militia. The spies were hidden in Rahab's house. Upon those who sought to capture the spies havng left Rahab's house after a serch, she told the spies that she had heard of the mighty works of God in parting the waters of the Red Sea, and how Jericho lived in fear of the Israelites because of the great things their God had done for them in bringing them out of Egyptian captivity. Rahab expressed belief in the God of Israel and requested that when Jericho was conquered by Israel that she and her family might be spared. This may not see like much of a work, but it was enough to show that she had come to believe in the God of Israel. Both these illustrations of James prove that faith is only as good as it's object, and the object must be GOD and confidence in HIS power and HIS word.

Rahab, the harlot is listed in the Geneology of Jesus, the Christ.

If there are never any righteous works in a person's life, then it may be that there is no true faith. but, if there is true faith, good deeds will eventually become evident.

if you will note, Jesus Himself restated the ten commandments. These are unchangable rules by which man may live in harmony with both man and GOD.

These rules were never changed. They are as true and applicable today as they were when they were placed on the stone tablets on Horeb. They have no saving qualities but do have condemning qualities. Jesus made the point that if you were guilty of one, you were guilty of all.

Knowing this, Jesus willingly laid down his life as a substitutionary sacrifice. One sacrifice, for all mankind, for all time. It's our faith in GOD's GRACE that saves man from the consequences of sin and the penalty of hell. Again, God send's no man to hell. To go to hell is a choice. You can trust GOD'S plan of salvation or you can go to hell. The choice is yours. If you go to hell, you can blame no one but yourself. The way is provided. Will you follow it?

fttc said...

I don't see how your explanation changes the way I took the quoted verse. You say the works are merely manifest after you are saved. But the quote says faith without works is dead. The works are a requirement for the faith that is used in applying the grace. It all works together. I am understanding you as saying the works are irrelevant to your saved status. I cannot reconcile this to the scripture in question whether the chapter is taken as a whole or not.

muggsey said...

You can take any verse out of context and interpret that verse any way you desire. The point was to read the chapter as a whole and determine the real intent of the quote.

Again faith preceds works. Works cannot stand alone without faith having been exercised. Any good work is the by-product of faith, not the other way around. Faith is whole acceptance of GOD'S HOLY GIFT of GRACE. You cannot see faith, you cannot see grace. You can however see the manifestation of grace through faith, that is work in honor and praise of God.

I guess the concept is too simple, especially if the person interpreting does not want to accept that GOD provided salvation as a free gift in the person of Jesus called the Christ.

God does the saving, all we are to do is to have faith that his grace is sufficient to keep on saving. To do less to to deny the power of GOD to save.

John 1:12 NKJV But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right (power) to become children (sons) of God, even to those who believe in (on) His name: 13 who were born, not of blood nor the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of GOD.

The real question becomes, why should The Righteous GOD accept any effort of man to save himself. This is especially foolish since GOD HIMSELF provided for our salvation. What can we as man do to impress HIM with our holiness? According to your doctrine, one slip up and it's back to square one. In other words, GOD is not powerful nor compasionate enough to care enough for you to save your soul.
So, you keep trying to save yourself and never do measure up to HIS HOLY standard.

Remember: It's HIS standard, not mine.

TBM said...

According to your doctrine, one slip up and it's back to square one.

No, not at all. Thanks, Muggs, for your explanation. I always like learning about people's differing religious philosophies, even if I don't agree. And I was surprised more by the similarity of what you said to Mormonism, rather than the difference.

I would agree with you that grace is what actually saves us, and that works are a manifestation of faith. When Mormons emphasize works, they mean that you need to have the faith that will result in works. It is by faith that we live the commandments and that we can have the Holy Ghost guide and advise us.

There is no concept in Mormonism that you can work your way into heaven by being an all-round nice guy, as a lot of people seem to think; they never do anything really terrible, therefore they must be headed upward. James 2:26 I think applies to those people who express a belief in God and Christ, but whose life is in no way affected by that; and also to those (you find them quite frequently among Mormons) who specifically do good works, not for Christ's sake, but because they think they will be blessed as a result -- people who've got it back-to-front, basically.

Repentance is a life process, not a single instant. It's the process whereby one changes from having no concept of right and wrong (like a baby), studying and learning God's will, and building one's faith to follow the will of God. Nobody can say "I've repented" (although plenty of people do, but that's because their understanding is incomplete), because the scriptures make it clear that the process continues beyond this life. So if you slip up, it's not "back to square one". It's just one more step in the process of learning.

muggsey said...


There is another "clinker" in the stove of Mormonism that I would like to have clarified, if you will.

We, in society at large, are constantly hearing that another male member of FLDS has been sent to repent from afar for some sin, real or imagined, that he has previously confessed either to Rulon Jeffs, Leroy Johnson or now Warren Jeffs. Since the "sin" was previously confessed why was not forgivness forthcoming? Reports that WJ sent and is sending these people into exile even after confession. Each of these individuals declared themselves to be prophets. If they are, as they claim to be, representatives of the Holy God, how ddo the reconcile that God can forgive, and promises to do so upon confession, yet they do not forgive confessed sin?

This whole concept reminds me of the Catholic clergy's hold over their parish. The clergymans family gives one of the sons, usually #2 to the church. These guys enter indoctrination classes, seminary or whatever to learn to say mass, perform the "sacriment", baptize infants and hear confessions. In the eyes of their leadership they each in turn have been the right to forgive sin and determine penitence required for forgivness. I believe that they have ursurped GOD's authority in the name of control.

The sinner then pays a sum to the church, is instructed to pray 107 Hail Mary's and 406 Our Father's, or whatever, and returns to repeat the offense again and again. One of the key causes of Luther's reformation was that the church was selling "indulgences" which allowed individuals to "pre-pay" for sins they intended to commit and thus purchase "fire insurance" against being sent to hell.

How does this differ from that which WJ is doing to FLDS? Is he not acting in the same mode, ursurping GOD's authority?

If a man and a woman are wed, we believe that they are joined by God and "whatever God has joined together let no man put assunder." I know that there are huge numbers of separations and divorces within the population at large and I do not condone the practice but, those who are guilty without GOD's forgivness will stand before HIM, and certainly not before any judgement over which I would officiate.

I will question justification, sanctification, and just what is forgivness in another post.

muggsey said...


typo correction: 2nd. paragraph above.

how do they reconcile that GOD can forgive, and promises to do so upon confession, yet they do not forgive confessed sin?

3rd paragraph.

In the eyes of their leadership they each in turn have been 'extended' the right to forgive sin......

TBM said...

I'm sorry I can't answer you Muggsey. I'm LDS, not FLDS, which are totally different organisations. Tempting though it is to try to respond on the FLDS behalf, that would just be speculation. I'll have to leave that to someone from the FLDS to answer.

Certainly, in the LDS, previously confessed sins should not be "revisited". At the time of confession, if the sin is severe enough (usually, that would mean a sexual sin or serious crime), the church might consider excommunication. But that is a drastic step that should be carried out reluctantly, and the individual is encouraged to get his life right again and be re-baptized. My father-in-law was actually excommunicated about eight years ago, but is now a bishop.

Obviously, the LDS church has no power to "exile" its followers, but I don't believe it would anyway -- throwing people out of the community is hardly the way to encourage a return to the fold! I find it interesting that the Doctrine & Covenants (Joseph Smith's collected revelations -- considered scripture by the LDS) lays down the rules of the United Order, a communal system that Joseph Smith experimented with briefly in the 1830's. It states clearly that the land each family received could not be taken away, even if they were to fall away or be excommunicated from the church. But under the United Effort Plan, the FLDS can take the land away.

Nor would the LDS church ever, EVER "reassign" somebody's wife and children, or even assume it had any right to. That just seems perverse to me, and wrong, WRONG, WRONG!!!

Anonymous said...

Miranda Hyde or Smith?