What's new

This is much worse than the gay

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
This is so much worse than the gay stuff that people around here are so afraid of... Those of you who support religious freedom, ummmm... This is like totally fine with you???

The legal wife of Lyle Jeffs, the man running the day-to-day operations of the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, has filed for divorce and wants custody of her minor children, in part because of some practices in the faith that she describes as "illegal."

Documents filed by Charlene Wall Jeffs, 58, discuss life in the FLDS under her husband and his imprisoned brother, Warren Jeffs — from restrictive diets to sexual policies that she refers to as rape.

Charlene Jeffs says she has been "excluded" from the teens' lives for about three years.

"Of Lyle's multiple wives, I was never the favorite because I have a mind of my own," Charlene Jeffs wrote in the petition. "Lyle sent me away from the family to repent for the first time in November 2002 because 'I did not know how to properly treat the Priesthood in my life.' "

FLDS leaders are referred to as "the Priesthood."

Charlene Jeffs described what she deemed two "illegal practices," including one adopted in recent years referred to as the "seed bearer" doctrine in which men no longer are allowed to have children with their wives. Instead, a group of seed bearers have been chosen.

"It is the husband's responsibility to hold the hands of their wives while the seed bearer 'spreads his seed,' " Charlene Jeffs wrote. "In layman terms, the husband is required to sit in the room while the chosen seed bearer, or a couple of them, rape his wife or wives."

It's not the first description of such a policy. In 2014, two University of Utah researchers published a paper on polygamy that, drawing on interviews, discussed how only 15 worthy men were allowed to procreate. That paper said the husband holds down the wife while one of the 15 men rapes her.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2438384-155/wife-of-utah-polygamist-leader-files?fullpage=1
 
Last edited:
At least they haven't succumbed to societal pressure and modified their faith to appease the masses. They are only following the word of God, our Lord and creator. Who are we to criticise? How can we presume to know the mind of God?
 
Jesus, way to absurdly connect people with a different opinion with a group of rapists. Give me a damn break. That's like equating someone to a serial killer for supporting abortion. Grow up.

Having said that I don't see how this isn't rape and should be hardly and extremely punished. Disgusting and I hope it ends the practice of this disgusting group.

Edit: every time I try to give a benefit of the doubt to OP and read a post I regret it. Maybe I've got bad luck and only read his worst stuff.
 
Jesus, way to absurdly connect people with a different opinion with a group of rapists. Give me a damn break. That's like equating someone to a serial killer for supporting abortion. Grow up.

Having said that I don't see how this isn't rape and should be hardly and extremely punished. Disgusting and I hope it ends the practice of this disgusting group.

Edit: every time I try to give a benefit of the doubt to OP and read a post I regret it. Maybe I've got bad luck and only read his worst stuff.

I have a hard time following the logic and lingo in here, sometimes. Who is your post addressed to, Jesus or Thriller, or are they the same person, maybe alts?
 
At least they haven't succumbed to societal pressure and modified their faith to appease the masses. They are only following the word of God, our Lord and creator. Who are we to criticise? How can we presume to know the mind of God?

OK, this one I can understand.

So, Game, here is my "faithful" interpretation of the teachings of Moses, and Jesus. Moses said anyone who claims to speak for God must be observed. If the thing they said doesn't happen the way it was prophesied, the false prophet should be stoned to death. Well, we now have gone away from that principle, and we allow certain human liberties, such as "Free Speech", and due process with equal treatment under the law.

Even the Book of Mormon teaches us not to allow false claimants to "Priesthood" to teach our children their lies, and in several places it denounces "Priestcraft", which is on the minimal level described as preaching for personal financial gain, but is also described as a sort of mind control power trip, comparable to the "oldest profession", to coin a phrase that will pass the filter in here. . . . which I take to mean using a claim of God's appointment to assert control over others for personal gain or personal power.

I might be troubled to find an organized religion that does not impose some restrictions on the beliefs or conscience of their members, or even that does not accrue some private financial gains or power accretions to the leadership, but may I state the case as I would imagine God might state it?

God does not want us to substitute anything in His stead, as a standard or as an object of faith. People who claim to have some right to interpose their demands on folks, claiming them to be commandments, are no reason for you or me to judge God negatively. The case in the OP is pretty clearly, in my view, way outta line with a proper belief in God. And, in my opinion, the folks who want to push some of their own ideas on society as "right" could be pretty much in the same class as Warren Jeffs or other self-aggrandizing pervs.

I might be dealing in tautological definitions here, but I insist that "God" is something, if not someone, who has an unchanging and fundamentally sound way of life, that we may recognize as good, and live by ourselves. . . maybe with a little help from above. . . . .

So when I see something that is just revolting, or sickening, I just don't choose to believe it has anything to do with God, but with some kind of depraved human condition. uhhhmmm. . . . or some political sort of intrigue afflicting our government somehow. . . .
 
OK, this one I can understand.

So, Game, here is my "faithful" interpretation of the teachings of Moses, and Jesus. Moses said anyone who claims to speak for God must be observed. If the thing they said doesn't happen the way it was prophesied, the false prophet should be stoned to death. Well, we now have gone away from that principle, and we allow certain human liberties, such as "Free Speech", and due process with equal treatment under the law.

Even the Book of Mormon teaches us not to allow false claimants to "Priesthood" to teach our children their lies, and in several places it denounces "Priestcraft", which is on the minimal level described as preaching for personal financial gain, but is also described as a sort of mind control power trip, comparable to the "oldest profession", to coin a phrase that will pass the filter in here. . . . which I take to mean using a claim of God's appointment to assert control over others for personal gain or personal power.

I might be troubled to find an organized religion that does not impose some restrictions on the beliefs or conscience of their members, or even that does not accrue some private financial gains or power accretions to the leadership, but may I state the case as I would imagine God might state it?

God does not want us to substitute anything in His stead, as a standard or as an object of faith. People who claim to have some right to interpose their demands on folks, claiming them to be commandments, are no reason for you or me to judge God negatively. The case in the OP is pretty clearly, in my view, way outta line with a proper belief in God. And, in my opinion, the folks who want to push some of their own ideas on society as "right" could be pretty much in the same class as Warren Jeffs or other self-aggrandizing pervs.

I might be dealing in tautological definitions here, but I insist that "God" is something, if not someone, who has an unchanging and fundamentally sound way of life, that we may recognize as good, and live by ourselves. . . maybe with a little help from above. . . . .

So when I see something that is just revolting, or sickening, I just don't choose to believe it has anything to do with God, but with some kind of depraved human condition. uhhhmmm. . . . or some political sort of intrigue afflicting our government somehow. . . .

So we mortals can define God?

I've been saying that all along.
 
"much worse than gay" might be an assertion, somehow, that "gay" is bad. strike one.
gay and cults have no rational connection. strike two.
implying that Mormons are locked into this kind of logical trap is just silly. strike three.
 
So we mortals can define God?

I've been saying that all along.

I love having these kinds of questions.

Of course we all define our words whenever we talk. We mean what we mean, not what others think we mean, by any word. Everyone who reads the word "God" has their own idea of what it means.

To address the question on a higher intellectual level, it is customary for religions to roll out some kind of catechism or statement of belief on what they define God to be. At least for Christian sects, anyway. Some religions like the Buddists or some related beliefs like Taoists, simply imply that God is unknowable, but the overwhelming reality of the universe, whatever that may be. I couldn't exactly say they have "defined" God.

I think I could make a good case that Jesus said God was His Father. The "I AM that I AM" in the scriptures, sometimes taken for a sort of definition of "God" is essentially a claim that God is the fundamental and overwhelming reality of the universe, and for that reason some scholars claim Jesus was taken to India and taught religion there. Some of the greatest religious men of oriental traditions are considered to have essentially harmonized with nature, with "God", with that unknowable and overwhelming reality, by somehow putting all human "desire" on the table and taking their heart and mind to that level of purity, or holiness, somehow.

Thus, in almost every religious tradition, if you will study it out, there is a root of recognition that God is more than we can know, or define. Sages have humbled themselves with this thought.

I am in the same boat. Whatever God is, He is His own interpreter, and definer. We can't materially affect that reality by our ideas or apprehensions.

And while I realize that, I sort through the various issues I encounter with a process of making choices in what I will consider possibly coming from God, and things I consider so contrary to the expectation of a "Father" in Heaven that I just won't waste the time of day believing them.
 
Jesus, way to absurdly connect people with a different opinion with a group of rapists. Give me a damn break. That's like equating someone to a serial killer for supporting abortion. Grow up.

Uhhh, what?


File this under the Jazzfanz hall of shame top ten. Under my other nine reigning posts.
 
OK, this one I can understand.

So, Game, here is my "faithful" interpretation of the teachings of Moses, and Jesus. Moses said anyone who claims to speak for God must be observed. If the thing they said doesn't happen the way it was prophesied, the false prophet should be stoned to death. Well, we now have gone away from that principle, and we allow certain human liberties, such as "Free Speech", and due process with equal treatment under the law.

Even the Book of Mormon teaches us not to allow false claimants to "Priesthood" to teach our children their lies, and in several places it denounces "Priestcraft", which is on the minimal level described as preaching for personal financial gain, but is also described as a sort of mind control power trip, comparable to the "oldest profession", to coin a phrase that will pass the filter in here. . . . which I take to mean using a claim of God's appointment to assert control over others for personal gain or personal power.

I might be troubled to find an organized religion that does not impose some restrictions on the beliefs or conscience of their members, or even that does not accrue some private financial gains or power accretions to the leadership, but may I state the case as I would imagine God might state it?

God does not want us to substitute anything in His stead, as a standard or as an object of faith. People who claim to have some right to interpose their demands on folks, claiming them to be commandments, are no reason for you or me to judge God negatively. The case in the OP is pretty clearly, in my view, way outta line with a proper belief in God. And, in my opinion, the folks who want to push some of their own ideas on society as "right" could be pretty much in the same class as Warren Jeffs or other self-aggrandizing pervs.

I might be dealing in tautological definitions here, but I insist that "God" is something, if not someone, who has an unchanging and fundamentally sound way of life, that we may recognize as good, and live by ourselves. . . maybe with a little help from above. . . . .

So when I see something that is just revolting, or sickening, I just don't choose to believe it has anything to do with God, but with some kind of depraved human condition. uhhhmmm. . . . or some political sort of intrigue afflicting our government somehow. . . .

This is exactly what religion is. You don't need a prophet or a bishop or anyone to know what is right and what is wrong. LDS calls it the light of Christ. I call it some common sense. Don't do bad things, you won't be a bad person. Have empathy, amen.
 
This thread has been officially #babed.

uhhhmmm. . . . and. . . . #trouted.

btw. . . . you changed your handle. . . . really. . . . was it because of the other Wells dude?

whatever, we like you better as trout.

straw poll the mods, if two really wanted this thread to run to page two, I'm surprised.
 
You are all Biggotts. Maybe Jeffs was born that way and we need to learn to accept it. (SARCASM FONT)
 
Back
Top