Saturday, September 27, 2008

Posts from "Me"

I wanted to have everyone read this from the I Percieve blog, a poster by the name "Me" said exactly what I think.

It is found HERE:

"How can a religious ceremony be called abuse? An FLDS marriage (or any marriage for that matter) is no more abuse than a baptism at 8 years old. Texas (or any other state) has no business governing people’s marriages. They are religious ceremony’s and held sacred to those entering them. In short, they are a commitment to God if done right.

With the government getting involved in marriage, it is nothing more than a business proposition now days. People get married to pay less taxes, or so they can have something to fall back on in a court of law to keep the children or earthly possessions if something should go wrong with their spouse or their marriage. Natural love or affection is becoming a thing of the past. It is all “what’s in it for me? ” rather than a man and a wife committing to live a life of sacrifice for each other, and stay together forever.

Government needs to step out of marriage, which is a religious institution, and concentrate on real crime. Even crime is being redefined by religious persecution. Now there doesn’t even have to be a call for help, or a victim to be considered a crime. Crime now is “you broke our laws! how dare you! so what if we passed them against your religion, you broke our laws! You are abusers!”

"Me" Then said:
"...the real lawbreakers are those who pass laws against the constitution, and thus the freedoms of the American people. I hope Americans are getting good and sick about all the corruption in our government and choose to go back to the good old days of 1776 when America was young and free."

And finally:
"Why is motherhood looked so down upon in America, as if motherhood in itself is abuse? “Oh, that’s terrible to be a mother at such a young age. Much better to spend your life in school to be a doctor or lawyer. Or if you choose to drop out of school be a rock star, or movie star. Motherhood is too much work, how terrible to want to be a mother. How fun it is to fool your life away, then settle down when you are too old to have children.”

"Without mothers, there would be no world. We are headed into depopulation with the current trend of gay marriages, and the outlawing of normal marriages, starting with polygamy, which was normal when the world began, and is still normal in 2/3 of the world.

"We Americans are so smart to depopulate ourselves. Can you not see at the current trend there will be NO Americans because of our laws? Wake up and be grateful for your mothers.

"Motherhood is the most glorious and sacred right a woman can have, but it is being trampled upon by this generation of Americans for so called “equal rights”. If God looked upon equal rights as we do, why did he ordain that only women could have children?

"The Lord made our bodies precisely as they should be, to create children at a young age while they are healthy and strong. Do we know better than Him?

"Is there any question that our government is pushing for depopulation? Why will government pay for abortions, but not for fertility? Why are they pushing for gay marriages, but trying to destroy the traditional family by taking their children away? Why is having many children looked down upon, as though a woman is brainwashed to believe in bearing children?

"We are in trouble America. Wake up for your own sakes. You are fighting against your own existence!"

This is exactly the truth, thanks to Me! :)


CSurge said...

Thanks for gathering those posts together, Al. It's exactly how I've felt as well. I'm glad someone could put it in better words than I could.

The Pharisee said...

I agree with "me" that Government should get out of marriage, but I also think Church should be out of marriage as well.

Only behaviors in and around the institution of marriage, which BIBLICALLY is a private family agreement are of interest to the Church. The state, has no iron in the fire, but has nosed into it, with our help, nonetheless.

Since I think we won't get Government out of the marriage business just like we won't get them out of the "Bailout" business (we have more chance of the latter, than of the former) I would opt for legalization, in the form of marriage contracts. To put it quite simply, privatize marriage.

ztgstmv said...

Yes pushing for depopulation--of first world countries. Meanwhile third world countries grow exponentially. Pretty soon, all we'll have is the third world left. And that kind of world won't last long, since the third world depends on the first world.

Pliggy said...

Hugh, I guess we have a different definition of "Church", which IS family to the FLDS.

First, second, and third worlds are all myths propogated by the UN.

“Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world” –Henry Kissinger

The Pharisee said...

Pliggy, since I confine myself to the 66 books of the Bible I have to recognize that I can find no example, mandate or suggestion of marriage in any official setting. Be that courtroom or sanctuary. In the set of scriptures I ascribe to, there's no such thing as a church wedding.

ztgstmv said...

I don't want to sound anti-semitic, or let's just say, I don't mind if it comes across that way, as I have Jewish friends and associates, but let's be honest, Jews in general talk out of both sides of their mouth, and you can't really take what they say as what they mean. There was debate last night even regarding what Kissinger meant vis a vis meeting with Iran's leader. It's the same story with almost any jew, Greenspan for example, or Bernanke, or Lieberman. Jews were the first neocons -- it was their reaction to the movement the Democratic civil rights movement that jews started at the grass roots level up to the highest level of government. They play both sides of the field, you cannot pin them down. When Kissinger says we need to depopulate the third world (code for dark skinned countries), he means we need to depopulate the first world (code for white countries), because he knew the first world would be forced to adopt the same policies advocated for the third world, lest they appear hypocritical. He knew all along, as everyone does, that telling third worlders to cut down their birth rates is futile.
Keep one thing in mind: Jews only care about Jews. You can't fault them for that, it's genetic. But you don't have to hate yourself just because they tell you to. Rant done.

Me said...

Most often those who believe in depopulation end up depopulating themselves. It's a mentality that leads to war, and destruction. Many nations, people and empires have become extinct when they become so proud as to think they are the only ones worthy to live.

Look at what we are doing in other nations, spreading our army all over the world in an effort to force our "democracy" religion on them. I don't think we have very many friends out there, and our nation is ripe for war and destruction. It may be too late already to avoid it, unless we can change the mentality of our government really quick.

When the wicked rule, the people mourn.

There absolutely no chance of an honest man becoming a government official in our nation. It takes money, not just popularity to get a seat in government. The honest of our country are taken advantage of in every way by our government, and reduced to ashes.

Pliggy said...

Hugh, read the book of John?

Ziet, yes, you do sound very anti-semetic. I definately agree that Jewish people stick together, but I also believe they have the right to that as much as the FLDS do. "They" do "such and such" (lie,cheat,steal) is bigoted no matter which group you are talking about. Bad doesn't have a race.

Pliggy said...


You sound so much like me you could be me!

The Pharisee said...

In excess of 30 times in the last 14 years Pliggy. He stayed in the Kitchen.

Pliggy said...

I read it too, but I sure didn't read anything about a kitchen. Got a verse in the JKV?

I just read wine, bridgroom, mother, wedding. I guess I missed something.

The Pharisee said...

"When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom..."

Jesus changed water to wine in ritual purification jars in which water stood to become clean. I make the assumption that the jars were in the "kitchen" area of the home in which the wedding occurred because, where else would they be? In addition, only the servants saw the transformation, indicating it occurred "offstage" so to speak.

Jesus WENT to the wedding, he did not officiate over it, or bless it or offer his sanctification beyond the fact that he approved of weddings and probably wouldn't have shown up at a whorehouse. Other than that there is no significance to his being present at the wedding.

I note the wedding, just as others about which we have detail, consisted of a family gathering and feast. Such weddings (like Jacobs) often lasted several days. Apparently the guests were a little potted as they were judged not to be able to know the superiority of the wine, served late in the feast, having dulled their senses with the wine that went before, and was now gone.

This was not in a church, with a priest, or in a court, with a judge. It was at home, and Christ himself took a backseat role. There are no examples of weddings officiated over by priest or government in scripture, nor are there any suggestions through example or law that they should be.

Pliggy said...

He WAS the bridegroom

The Pharisee said...

Ok, your interpretation then, not mine, but the ceremony was still neither church or governmental in nature.

Pliggy said...

So, what does "church" mean to you?

The Pharisee said...

If you say every family gathering occurred in Church, then it was in a Church. LDS/FLDS weddings though, occur in a temple, Catholic and Other denominations also occur in churchs. Puritans by the way, regarded church marriage as a "satanic ritual" and did not do it. It was later that the practice crept back into reformed venues.

Me said...

Pliggy is right about the bridegroom.

Not to disrupt your conversation, but back to the topic, here is an article that supports the evidence where it is quoted by Rodger Hooole a name partner with Hoole & King in Salt Lake City who represents former FLDS members:

“The problem is not really polygamy; the problem is the BELIEF that women and children are unilaterally the property of the priesthood, and they raise the girls from the cradle to grow up and be MOTHERS and plural WIVES. It’s all the girls have ever known.”

Proof positive in the thinking that being a MOTHER is abuse.
And its the BELIEF of the FLDS that's the problem.

Pliggy said...

Actually FLDS weddings, and many LDS weddings prior to the death of John Taylor, were performed outside of a temple.

The church then is a building?

Pliggy said...

Everyone believes that marriage is the right thing to do, most just don't know why. They don't realize WHY they feel like marriage makes their love more legitimate; it just does. Marriage is an imaginary security blanket often written on a piece of paper.

After all, most women go through the trial and error of many years of dating and getting their hopes dashed over and over, they date less for the fun of it (while this is often part of it), and more for the hope that dating will come to an end and they find their man. For most women marriage is a nest, it is the committment that the man she loves will not run off and abandon her. Girls are very confused by society deciding that what their instinct tells them; that of wanting to be primarily MOTHERS is "not right". Why? Because men are "not dependable", and it is "slavery" to depend on men. Self fulfilling prophecy.

Most men only get married "after" they feel like they have tried all their options. Most men today believe marriage is when they "finally" have to take responsibility for their actions. They avoid the committment because it "ties them down". They "lose" their "freedom" to date many different women. A man who does get married, does so mostly because his girl WANTS him to, and he decides that now he want's her to be limited to him, and she not go looking for someone else who WILL commit to her.

Today secular marriage is more a ME first proposition, rather than a committment to SERVE. Especially among those who do not keep themselves exclusively pure prior to the marriage vow, it has very little to do with a promise from self to God and self.

Marriage is universally a union. For a woman it is her getting a rock she can trust, for a man it him getting a mother and child he wants. This is how it was meant to be.

Most people belive that men who engage in plural marriage do so because they cannot control themselves with one wife. This comes from their own life experiences of trial and error and the dating process. In the FLDS, plural marriage is held EXCLUSIVELY for those men and women who control themselves the very most.

Higher responsibility is the purpose, a higher committment is the purpose, eternal posterity is the purpose, a greater sacrifice to God's family is the purpose.
Personal appetite for all things physical is to be completely mastered and set on the altar before God.

If it is a crime, it is a crime of belief, a thought crime.

ztgstmv said...

The problem with the scenario mentioned above where men and women do a lot of dating before they settle down and get married is that this lifestyle is unsustainable to a civilization on a macro level. Every developed country in the world is facing a birth rate lower than the replacement rate, and it is because a sizeable proportion of women and men won't get married until later in life, at which point they are too old to have children. In addition to this sorry scene, I've hear that up to 25% of the population never gets married at all.

This situation obviously can't continue on forever. Imagine if this trend were to continue what would happen to Germany say, or Russia. They would run out of young men to serve in the military, and young women to be nurses, and so on. Slaves would need to be imported from the third world in ever larger numbers to sustain the country's services to its citizens. This eventually changes the demographic makeup of the country, the politics change, the culture changes. Civil war erupts, or the weakness of the country itself invites invaders. Does any of this ring a bell? How about the fall of Rome? History repeats itself.

Maayan said...

I dont know who your Jewish friends are, but let me tell you this is not how WE are. We are united and protect our people in any comunity just like FLDS do. And what you say that you cant take what we say as what we mean? Neather can I with catholics, or christians, look at your people, look at your country, can you really believe what these people say? Walther NOT JEWISH, Bush NOT JEWISH, Obama NOT JEWISH, Marleigh NOT JEWISH, Perry NOT JEWISH, and i can go on and on and on, and do they respect others NO THEY DONT......... do they care for others? NO THEY DONT, So dont give me this BS SAYING that we only care for us, cause you cant imagine the harm you people have caused to the world. and if you dont want to sound antisemitic well hun YOU JUST DID, you can go to a skinhead meeting, you deserve it. oh,.,. BTW ask grandpa Bill where his roots are from, you would be AMAZED what kind of "religion" he has in his blood!!!!!!!!
Stupid coment the one you have just made.

rericson said...

Well, I have a somewhat different take on this than others have expressed...
As several 'points' have surfaced, I'll try to address them independently...
1. "church" has several definitions. First it is a specific set of beliefs and doctrine which create an 'institution', with defined parameters. Then it is the people who ascribe to those beliefs and doctrine. And, it can be a physical building or place. Therein is a language nuance..."THE church" is people. "A church" is a physical place. Or, in a conversation on a mega scale and not specific to any sect or denomination, the term "A church" can be used to refer to a set of people ascribing to a particular belief.
In the FLDS culture, when one refers to 'the church', one is talking about the people of the FLDS community.
It is the same as when refers to 'the Catholic church', one is generally referring to the worlwide group of people who ascibe to the beliefs and doctrines of that institution.

2. As for the discussion concerning 'marriage' and whether the state has any interest in it as an institution or practice;
As long as major aspects of our larger culture are tied to marriage as not just a spiritual, but also a legal contract, the state has a real interest.
Not everyone views marriage as a spiritual contract. There are those who view it as simply a legal contract that they desire to enter into with another, specifically to insure and assure the availability of those benefits and protections that are the 'state's interest'.
On the other hand, and particularly concerning those persons who believe in plural marriage, as long as the participants recognize that the benefits and protections of the state are only afforded to those who have entered into a 'legal' as well as spiritual contract, and are willing to forgo those benefits for all others, then it should be no business of the state. Any documentation, such as bishop's records or certificates held by the church administration should be protected, as any communication is, between a pastor and congregant. It should not be subject to subpoena or any other secular disclosure as so doing violates that sacrosanct communication.

3. As for the use of terms like "developed nations", "westernized nations", "western culture", or "third world countries". These are legitimate descriptors with common understanding of meaning. They are ways of conveying information about, or creating clarification to the listener.
The term "third world" is a way to describe a nation or area that has little technology, or technology is not readily available to the masses. It is an area that has a great deal of poverty, and lack of formal education. It is an area where the masses cannot access basic life needs like adequate food, shelter, clean water, and decent health care. Much of our world falls into this category. In using a commonly understood term like "third world", it automatically tells the listener a host of information about the area being discussed with only a few words. It is nothing more, nothing less than a commonly understood descriptor.

4. To paint Jews, or any defined or unique ethnic or racial group with a broad, uniform brush is wrong. It is a form of lying. Every single individual on the face of the earth is unique. And unless a particular individual is born without any capacity for intelligent thought, each individual has unique characteristics and makes unique decisions.
Every individual is influenced by those around him or her. Every indivuidual seeks out the company of those they feel comfortable with. And if we each, as individuals, want to be treated as such, and respected as such, we owe nothing less to every other individual. And that is irrespective of what group or race or any other defining factor an individual may hail from.
Never has an adage been more meaningful or needed that "do unto others what you would have others do unto you."

rericson said... I forgot a couple of points I wanted to make.
I believe when Kissinger talked about "depopulating" he actually was talking about slowing the population growth to allow for economic development. Remember, no matter how good his English, and how very, very bright Henry Kissinger is, English is his second language. He may very well not think in English. He may constantly be doing a translation back and forth....

The other point is about the desire for mother hood, etc.
Within a closed community, especially one where marriage and childbearing are esteemed in the doctrine and beliefs of the people, those are things that young people aspire to and look forward to, anziously. Within the community it is looked upon as a blessing and the individuals are supported by family and community.
In the larger society, the realities for having children before the time that you are able to support yourself and your children is not such a good idea.
Also, for as long as divorce has existed, women have often found themselves outside a marriage with children to support and no means or skills to do that.
I know even today, several women who married young, did not have careers, or any job training to speak of before marriage. Settled down, had children. There "job" was taking care of the home and the children while their husbands worked to earn money. In their forties, with teenage children, they found themselves with husbands who wanted divorces to be able to marry some young chippie who made them feel young and virile, and their wives found themselves having to enter the job market with no experience and no skills to do anything with but take a low paying, entry level position.
So, in the larger world, if young people have the opportunity to get an education whereby they have marketable skills, before having children, it's not such a bad idea.

And, there are those people who may choose to not marry, or to marry and not have children. If we want folks to not be judgmental about the life choice for plural marriage, then it certainly isn't right, or fair to disparage other types of choices that are available on the continuum.....

The issue is that we should each have the right, without government interference, to choose what is right for ourselves....not to put one way of living over another...

Pliggy said...

Maayan, you are absolutely right, I still think people engage in "groupthink" too much. The names Ziet mentioned are dishonest men in my book, but it is not because they are Jewish. I know a lot of dishonest people who are not Jewish, and a some VERY honest people who are. To blame "Group A" for your inferiority complex is very small minded. It is nothing but laziness, and dangerous laziness at that.

About your comments mom Regina.

1- The "Church" in the FLDS community is the leadership, and Priesthood authority. Without that marriage is not valid to the group.

2- "benefits and protections that are the 'state's interest'"

This is also "groupthink". The STATE should have NO "interests" for GROUPS, even groups of TWO, called "Married". The state should have protection for INDIVIDUAL'S. For some reason the words "Promote" and "Provide" have been completely misunderstood from the Constitution. It is too bad.

3. I agree that it is a common term but your "Third world countries" description PROVES that it is a commonly used, generally MIS-understood MYTH. There are areas of the United States that fit your description, and areas of EVERY nation in Africa and South America that do not. That is the problem, the "First World" only describes banker nations (military strenght), and "Third World" describes debtor nations. Access to anything is only limited by will power, not welfare. "Welfare" loans to governments are worse than poverty, and create greater poverty in the long run. Our world economy is run by Satan. He will "kindness" you straight to death, hell, and the grave.

4. Very true, Groupthink is dangerous. "Pligs/Jews/Americans/blacks/whites" are "bad" is rediculous. (But so is "Groups" are "good" but nobody ever complains about that)

Henry Kissinger meant exactly what he said, and as an individual, he is a brilliant DIRTBAG. The only reason he has any power in any government (He has never been elected to anything) is because he is best friends with David Rockerfeller, OWNER of the private club called the Council On Foreign Relations, AND the globalist (CNNommunist/Foxascist) United Nations.

Individuals have rights, should demand protection, and should have every public opportunity. That is ALL the government should do. All GROUPS should be private contracts merely registered with and enforced by the government if desired.

Just remember "government" means Rules and leaders to POLICE by, and Civil government has only two tools, GUNS and MONEY. As much as we wish it to be so, civil government has absolutely no power of LOVE. You cannot pay employees to care.

Want to know another myth that I keep reading from you and others?
"closed communities"
No society you are among will change the dynamics of humanity. Definitions, and priorities my be different, but you cannot change plumbing, or psychology.

"In the larger society, the realities for having children before the time that you are able to support yourself and your children is not such a good idea.
...for as long as divorce has existed, women have often found themselves outside a marriage with children to support and no means or skills to do that."

Your hypotheticals do not need to be planned for prior to marriage. Marriage and children does not exclude women from educating themselves or entering the marketplace. TONS do BOTH and more CAN do both. "Planning" for failure BEFORE getting married is REDICULOUS, even in YOUR society.
MEANS and SKILLS do not include MONEY.

Why do you not see the problems with pushing the wait, wait mantra? That is a huge part of the REASON your society has so many divorces, irresponsible men, and single mothers. Mothers need to REQUIRE their sons to be responsible earlier, and stop treating them so much like babies after they hit puberty. They NEED responsibility to develop.

When I see a pregnant lady, I rejoice for her because that is God's child, and the mother's life will change for the better, not for the worse. It is not a "punshment" it is a NECESSARY and WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY.

Me said...

Regina explained the beauties and superiority of the FLDS way of life. All the women in FLDS have an opportunity to be married to a responsible, and moral man, true to his covenants. If the husband chooses to do otherwise, the woman can be released, and given to a man of that description. It is all about women's rights to have a true and loyal husband who will support her, which is very rare in the "women's rights" nation of America.

There are many in any culture, both men and women who choose not to be responsible, or moral, or loyal to their covenants which describes Dan Fischer, Flora, Carolyn, and the lost boys.