Just_A_Guy

I know that's Dr. Laura's advice, Will, but she frequently deals with (there's no polite way to say this) highly dysfunctional women who get passed from man to man. I don't think there's any harm in a single parent seeking a new mate if the parent has the emotional maturity to balance the relationship between a new partner and the children, if the single parent chooses well, and if the kids are on board.

Aww, c'mon, Rameumptom--you can't leave us hanging like that!

Point taken, but the article also cites Rigdon as saying that he never saw the Book of Mormon until he was presented with a finished copy--and appealing to his wife and [Edit] daughter as witnesses of that fact. [Edit 2]: Anyhoo, more here.

People are starting to put two and two together with ACORN and last year's Minnesota Senate race (which Franken won by about 300 votes).

We've bailed out the banks. We've bailed out the automakers. Now, Berkeley's bigwigs think it's time to bail out the nation's "great public universities".

The Solomon Spalding theory . . . debunked long ago.

Beck draws heavily off Skousen's work. Beyond that . . . I got nothin'.

I should have thought both the date and the context would have made it reasonably clear.

Hmm. We have Godwin's law about invoking Hitler and Nazis. Do we need a similar law about invoking Marx and Communists?

I should have been more clear. I was responding primarily to your statement that and a slough of other posts concluding, in essence, that the outlawing of polygamy is evidence of divine disapproval of the practice. If "civil law is predicated upon God's law", does it follow that ObamaCare--if passed--is the word and the will of the Lord to the American people?

So, every time the federal government restricts a religious practice, it is doing so as the duly approved agent of God? Frankly, you're the last person on this board whom I would expect to sustain the federal government as the final arbiter of Divine will. But, I guess that's neither here nor there.

First-ever Jet Powered Carousel

It's going to be OK, Nikki. Even if you are subjected to Church discipline, it won't be the end of the world. The important thing is to get yourself right with the Lord.

Didn't Elder Holland state something to that effect in his most recent Conference talk? Edit: See also this talk by Melvin J. Ballard.

Didn't want to start a new thread for this, but Wanda Barzee is apparently working towards repentance and re-baptism.

Heck, I can't even point to any specific instances where men (other than JS) married women without the first wife's consent, so I certainly can't point to any instances where they were disciplined for doing so. I'm not aware that anyone has really looked into the "policies and procedures" of polygamy; most of what I've seen seems more preoccupied with its emotional impact on those who lived it. It seems to me (not positive) that she was emotionally unbalanced and may have had a history of making crank calls. Conceivably, but I've heard unfavorable jibes about her even from ex-members who have little remaining loyalty to the FLDS church. Obviously, no one source is going to give a complete picture here. As far as personally judging Ms. Jessop, I suppose you're right in that we should be charitable and cut her some slack. But if we're going to charitably label her as emotionally adolescent, we need to also view her factual accounts with the same jaundiced eye a parent uses in evaluating the factual validity of his teenaged daughter's statements. Thanks for the sum-up. I'll have to read it if/when I get a chance. I don't doubt that families were "reassigned" in some cases, though I wonder how statistically prevalent it is/was. I also wonder--was it a matter of Jeffs tearing apart families who all wanted to remain together? Or was it a matter of Jeffs saying to the women "your husband's sinning" and the women then saying "well, we want someone worthy, then." Neither situation is ideal (obviously!), but I'd be inclined to cut a little more slack in the latter case. After all, even the LDS church makes institutional judgments about the righteousness of its members (via excommunication). Brent, of course, has two causes of action. One is for being expelled from the community, and the other is for the sexual abuse. It may well be that he agreed to waive the payments for the former claim, but not the latter. News stories I've read say that Brent is definitely going after Warren personally. If I get a lot of time (and a few extra bucks in copying costs), I'll have to pull the court pleadings sometime. The screwy thing is, they can't give the property back to the individual FLDS because most of them would just turn it back over to Warren again. I don't envy the trustee. I agree with you that Jeffs' ascension caused major changes in FLDS society, at least some of them negative. On the other hand, it's easy to "blame the new guy" when things go south--witness the bloggernaccle and how the gay-rights wing of the Church is accusing President Monson of being so "divisive" (by getting behind Prop 8) and publicly longing for Hinckley's return--even though both men in truth followed the exact same policies. Some of these charges that are coming out are self-contradictory. For example, Ms. Jessop talks about the alleged FLDS policy of "bleeding the beast", but then says that she signed her kids up for welfare bennies entirely on her own initiative with no urging from--or knowledge by--her husband. The truth, as in all cases, probably lies between the two extremes. On the whole, I'm glad Jeffs is in jail; but I wish they'd gotten him on charges that weren't so obviously trumped up. (But the Steed/Wall debacle is an entirely other story!)

Not sure we're understanding each other. I answered "yes" to your question of on the understanding that by "apostate groups" you meant "current FLDS" - as in "apostate" from the mainline LDS Church. I dispute the contention that "ex-cult members would provide the most reliable information", just as I would dispute the contention that Jerald and Sandra Tanner would provide the most reliable information about the LDS Church. Especially when one of those "ex-cult members" is on record as saying, while nursing children were being torn from their mothers, "I don't give a f*** what the parents think" (as Carolyn Jessop did).

Solar Power, Without the Panels

I dunno. I gravitate towards a "textualist" reading of legislation, and I can't fault bureaucrats for doing the same. Personally, I'd rather have bureaucrats carrying out a law as-written--even if that law results in an obvious absurdity--than have bureaucrats pick and choose which laws they will enforced based on whether a particular law offends their personal prejudices. Assuming that Michigan's laws are really written in such a way as to bar the practice: the state legislature caused the problem, and the state legislature should be the one to fix it.

Umm . . . if you're intending to disseminate "factual" information about them and their practices, then your answer is "yes". To do otherwise is reckless libel.

Byte, if you log into FamilySearch before doing your search, the results of the search will show LDS ordinance data.

Elphaba, I wish I could recall where I read about the modifications to later editions, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. Will let you know if I remember it.

Had a couple of friends who turned up at a ward party with white T-shirts with a giant "P" on each shirt; and they had heavy black eye make-up. They were, of course, black-eyed peas. Had another friend (female) who arrived, took off her shoes and stuffed a pillow down her shirt--thus becoming barefoot and pregnant.

Babysit your neighbor's kids in Michigan; get investigated by DHS by running an illegal daycare.

I'm not saying the ex-es should be ignored. But they are only part of "the source"--the other part being the current polygamists. Admittedly the FLDS haven't done themselves many favors, with their pre-2008 refusal to engage the outside world. But they've been vocal lately; and other polygamous groups (like the Allredites) have always been willing to talk to a greater or lesser degree. Are we listening?