Let's Get Honest! Blog

Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family –and "Conciliation" — Courts' Operations, Practices, and History

Christianity and Its Sects in the Statehouse…(Gov’nr Marriage Initiatives, etc.)

leave a comment »

Reader warning: Not including this opening (rant?) this is an obnoxiously long (>=27,000 words) post,much of it quotes

Show and tell about some of the less publicized, or underappreciated, truths of mainstream powerful (that means financed and politically savvy, politically connected) beliefs of the truly religious who truly intend to run this place, the USA.  That is, more than they already are.

Yes, I tell this from my point of view, and on some of this I’m a former insider turned conscientiously objecting outsider, as to the religious organizations I once felt free to circulate among believing they were a little more tolerant than too many are….

(I’M A LITTLE TOUCHY ON THE FORMATTING IN THIS POST — SKIP BELOW OPENING SKYBLUE, two or three vertical inches of my yakking , IF YOU WISH TO IGNORE.  OR SCAN FOR YET ANOTHER TEACHING MOMENT..I’m full of information on this topic.  See Election Day Upcoming….)

In defense of the outrageous formatting — I tried to keep some quotes separated by background color,painstakingly manually entering the HTML to do so for every single occurrence, choosing some individually, or a few basic html color-codes memorized.  This includes line-height, font-changes, etc.  My habit of explaining quotes in the middle of an existing one didn’t improve the situation.

Moreover, wordpress doesn’t save right all the time, so it would lose formatting.  As the saying goes, simple designs are best.

Quite honestly, if you want a fantastic looking website  – go look at fatherhood.gov, or go look at the healthy marriage resource center which has a color theme AND a logo.  Then consider who paid for this nice stuff — because, most likely, given the backing — YOU did.

National Healthy Marriage Resource Center National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse

Don’t forget to read from HMRC a recent report on the results of pushing marriage to low-income couples, published under “OPRE” of the HHS (that’s USGOV, HHS/ACF/OPRE) + MDRC (a major corp. which was formed in 1974 as a Ford Foundation/Federal Agencies combo, which is where most of its funding comes from.  I’ve blogged it..).   This 2010 study (a six-pager press release, is what it looks like written by six individuals, whose careers it will help no doubt, is called:

Early Lessons from the Implementation of a Relationship and Marriage Skills Program for Low-Income Married Couples

and “only” took funding from THESE:

MDRC and its subcontractors, Abt Associates, Child Trends, Optimal Solutions Group, and Public Strategies, Inc., are conducting the Supporting Healthy Marriage evaluation under a contract with the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), funded by HHS under a competitive award, Contract No. HHS-223-03-0034. {{that =the HHS link to the report}} The findings and conclusions presented herein do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of HHS.

Child Trends is an Annie E. Casey org; Abt Associates has done several of these evaluations (the name comes up); Optimal Solutions Group, I DNR for sure, but believe it’s related to Public Strategies, and Public Strategies, of course is a SMALL PR firm which is now a much more PROMINENT PR firm as it helped kickstart and manage the first welfare-grab action in Oklahoma, ca. 1999/2000.  Which initiative (OMI) “only” took $10 million at that time from direct aid to needy families to, instead, run programs like this.

However these studies most not be cost-efficient because look who else had to then still pay more for them.  Is anyone over-billing, I wonder….

Dissemination of MDRC publications is supported by the following funders that help finance MDRC’s public policy outreach and expanding efforts to communicate the results and implications of our work to policymakers, practitioners, and others: The Ambrose Monell Foundation(see last page here, + below/International Nickel), The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, The Kresge Foundation (think, K-Mart, older company), Sandler Foundation (Savings & Loan, sold to Wachovia for $25billion, netting $1.4 billion for a foundation, this one….making it one of the 30 largest in the country.  That’s actually a fantastic write-up of the Sandlers, who also funded ProPublica ($30 million).They are progressive.  Progressives are into this cause, too FYI…) , and The Starr Foundation. {{INSURANCE, it turns out}}.  (More Kresge background)

Cornelius Vander Starr

The Starr Foundation was established in 1955 by Cornelius Vander Starr, an insurance entrepreneur who founded C.V. Starr & Co. and other companies later combined by his successor, Maurice R. Greenberg into what became the American International Group, Inc. [[AIG]] Mr. Starr, a pioneer of globalization, set up his first insurance venture in Shanghai in 1919. He died in 1968 at the age of 76, leaving his estate to the Foundation.

Not that Starr was alive at the time, but didn’t we just bail out AIG to the tune of $182 million in 2008? (hover cursor)

The Foundation currently has assets of approximately $1.25 billion, making it one of the largest private foundations in the United States. It makes grants in a number of areas, including education, medicine and healthcare, human needs, public policy,

respectively (the ones I know offhand), UPS (AEC), steel (Carnegie, right?) retail stores, and ????  Back to the Marriage Study:

In addition, earnings from the MDRC Endowment help sustain our dissemination efforts. Contributors to the MDRC Endowment include Alcoa Foundation, The Ambrose Monell Foundation, Anheuser-Busch Foundation, Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Ford Foundation, The George Gund Foundation, The Grable Foundation, The Lizabeth and Frank Newman Charitable Foundation, The New York Times Company Foundation, Jan Nicholson, Paul H. O’Neill Charitable Foundation, John S. Reed, Sandler Foundation, and The Stupski Family Fund, as well as other individual contributors.

(The Stupski Foundation (not family fund) show him as coming from Schwab (+Princeton, Yale…) and her in Special Ed particularly; He has been on the board of MDRC….and is on the board of the Glide Foundation)

So supporting the MDRC Endowment which supports, studies on these matters in order to form a more perfect union between corporations and social scientists when it comes to government policies, we have contributing foundations who made their money in:

“On Sept. 21, 2004 at the post-concert New York Philharmonic Opening Night gala dinner, Gala Chairmen Hiroko and Hiroshi Tada (far left and far right) and Lizabeth Newman (third from left) with Maestro Lorin Maazel and his wife Dietlinde and Philharmonic Board Chairman Paul B. Guenther”   {{to the right — NYT link above/unrelated:  Herb and Marion Sandler.}}

The Newmans are married.  Perhaps if every one stayed married we, too, could attend some NYPhilharmonic Opening Nights?  Therefore, why not support studies of low-income couples and testing marriage promotion on them, funded federally…disseminated with help from the MDRC endowments these helped fund…)

The report (which I’m looking at) thanks:

Our appreciation goes to Andrew Cherlin, Kathy Edin,**(see “OMI”)  Richard Heyman, Ronald Mincy, (search my blog — he runs a fatherhood research institute at Columbia) and Robert Wood for their thoughtful review of the report).  On page 5 of the report, they show which curricula they used — four, in total.  Two were based on PREP (federally-funded), and one on PAIRS (also federal grantee, or its originator).  The fourth was based on a corporation called “loving couples, loving families, inc.” in Seattle and focuses on military families:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/US-Naval-Special-Warfare-Training-Families-07010/

One example of the US military’s response is the Naval Special Warfare (NSW) Resiliency Program, which recently issued a contract worth up to $44.4 million to Loving Couples Loving Children, Inc. in Seattle, WA. This LCLC program was originally developed by John and Julie Gottman for low-income couples expecting a child

The Gottmans are highly involved in this field also….It’s big business, maybe instead of promoting marriage to low-income couples, someone should promote the “promoting marriage BUSINESS” to them (ALL of them!) which has a guaranteed federal grants stream behind it and infinite expansion possibilities.  Who needs child care or housing subsidy after that? People could get off welfare in a flash — all they have to do is go forth and recruit.  Make sure that a sizeable target population of low-income remains (supply & demand).  I suggest perhaps captive audiences — like prisoners?  Or adolescents enrolled in high school? (There’s competition, but not a monopoly already involved in those market niches).   Go grab a mother with small children off a soupline and promise them better, chunkier soup — if they enroll….

OK, that’s enough — and this is the REAL post…..That was just the reader alert that this was a long, and messy, post….on volatile topics that are going to offend some people more than the appearance here….

At the bottom of this post is 2001 testimony in front of a U.S. Senate Subcommittee, on the subject of  Welfare and Marriage.  If you read nothing else, please read this, and the section introduced by Rep. Mark Anderson (a Unification church members)….

Romney is sure to promote and approve of this continued funding of marriage promotion, yet Obama has, every bit as much as George W. Bush did, all of this having been specifically enabled to start with by 1996 welfare reform, which tied federal aid to the states NOT to families receiving the aid — but as block grants, tempting certain individual with specific, evangelistic and religious agenda, to grab it for specialized programming.

My Background, not Uncommon, belies common Welfare and Religionspeak.

I was not raised religious, but became interested as a young woman in college, and continued this interest to this day.  While never a traditional church attender (at least for religious reasons), I’ve had exposure to many traditions over time, after which an abusive marriage with religion at the forefront of said excusitis.  I then got out of that and realized just how religious our overall culture had become in the meantime (the 1990s, 2000s in particular) — and how much of that resurgence of religion was in direct response to the challenge of feminism, and the challenge presented by women like me getting out of marriages like that.  When I say “women like me” — many women in abusive marriages are targeted because of their education or professional ability — and not because of (as welfare funding presumes, patronizingly) because of a LACK of it.  The abuse happens across the spectrum.

Women in my situation, while we are willing to speak out about, and if necessary boycott, religious groups on the basis of their overt abuse and treatment of women and children,  are not usually ready to become so-called radical feminists and embrace the whole spectrum of, for example, N.O.W. or issues which would require us to utterly reject the foundations of a personal spirituality or understanding of life having spiritual components, however they are expressed in language and culture.

It has not helped induce even the moderately religious to speak out against misogyny, or minimizing/coverup up crimes committed against women (mothers, specifically) and constantly demeaning/minizing  women, to have practically the only others who are doing this, insisted on the full spectrum of polarizing matters which some are divided on, for example, abortion “whenever,” or endorsing and promoting LGBT no matter what.

Moreover, most of recent history and a good deal of the records of human history (and civilization) have a religious underpinning — and superstructures — so to fail to LOOK at this from inside and outside, to me, makes no sense.

If I’d relied only on help from nice(?), religious people to survive and/or leave, and/or thrive after that marriage — I truly believe one nuclear family — or the majority of it — would be dead right now.  When I then do the life-promoting thing, which is to separate, I truly do not appreciate living in a country run by forces which endorse the death-promoting thing, which is worshipping marriage as an idol, and sacrificing human life to it.   Or being silent while others do this.

However, it is not going to take me much more to become a very radical feminist if we have much more of this stuff shoved down the collective, national throat as “good” for someone, when it’s basically good for those who have an extremely odd and convoluted view of the universe.   Some of which I look at in this post.  Specifically three Christian groups:  Protestant Evangelical, Mormon & a bit of Catholic.  I also gave a brief review (but have blogged elsewhere) of Unification church.

ALL of these have promoted the “teach marriage using welfare funds” theory and exploited the situation.

Then, of course we had the election of 2000 and an Executive Order on faith-based programming.  A friend of mine sent me an “About.com” summarizing the situation — even as far back as 2005.  Here is the link, plus some:

Federal Funding of Faith-Based Services

Why Not Give Federal Funds to Churches?

By ,

“The government gave more than $1 billion in 2003 to organizations it considers ‘faith-based,’ with some going to programs where prayer and spiritual guidance are central…” recently reported Laura Meckler, AP writer. . . .

In January 2001, President Bush created, via Executive Order, the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Since then, Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives were established at five federal agencies, assistance and guidebooks were provided to religious groups to help them to apply for federal funds, and websites were created for speedy access to applications.

And in February 2004, the President issued an Executive Order earmarking an astonishing $3.7 billion to be doled out to faith-based and other organizations.

Apparently, Bush’s faith-based initiative was never intended to give religious-related groups equal footing in the federal grants process. Bush’s faith-based initiative was conceived to be the centerpiece of his administration’s domestic agenda, spearheading the final attack on the New Deal and the War on Poverty by replacing, not augmenting, federal social services.

Federal regulations now allow federal agencies to directly fund churches and other religious groups. Bush acted alone to rewrite these regulations after failing to persuade Congress to change the law.

That’s not enough, said Jim Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. An additional $40 billion in federal money is given out by state governments, he said, and many states do not realize that federal rules now allow them to fund these organizations. “

With neither Congressional approval nor oversight, and without Judicial review, President Bush has successfully implemented his vision of doling out multi-billions of federal taxpayer funds annually to faith-based groups to supplement or support their social services programs.

. . .(In H.R. 1261) . . . George Bush has effectively inoculated faith-based social service providers from complying with federal employment requirements as a backdoor method of implementing a new American social order that permits discrimination on any basis in the workplace.



And that was in 2005.  We are now in 2012.  I recently was reviewing a list of “megachurches” in a certain state, most of which got to be “mega” by their innate desire for evangelism, skillful use of the internet, and at least one was running PREP, Inc. and had just begun more associated nonprofits (social service) which were already delinquent in filing.   Here’s a by-state searchable database from 2011 from

Hartford Institute for Religious Research (thanks to them for this research!)

Megachurches by State (separate smaller files)

So, I look at some distant AND recent history of some of these Christian groups, in addition to their self-portraits on the internet and as, again, presented before the Pope   Congress, or Congressional subcommittee hearings re: what to do with the pooled wealth (which WELFARE and the right to collect funds and appropriate children here or there, regardless of parentage or existing law) of this enterprise we call our country.

This is addressed to atheists, skeptics, agnostics, and any “a-religious” innocents as to what they’re facing, here… and why the family (unified, conciliation, etc.) courts are producing a helluva a lot of “ex-”converts of these religions, and refusing to support them…  

And such (women/mothers) can document what our various institutions covered up, excused, and how we were degraded in those institutions the moment we rejected domination by a resident male; unless we accepted a replacement dominator (of either gender).

 

I myself was left wondering why I so identified with an experience I didn’t share – at least technically — and certainly not in degree — as described in women who courageously reported on their treatment under polygamous Islam and shari’a.    I had to ask what, precisely, was so darned threatening to my own family line about one woman, a mother, divorcing, when our own parents had?  or was it that I stood up to violence and reported it, that I actually had the guy thrown out before some got hurt (worse)?

It is a serious social hazard at this point.   

While promoting marriage, or  declaring a war on divorce, may be sold as for the public benefit, a closer look at who’s talking loudest may be that a more likely cause is Evangelism, either by Propagation, Indoctrination, or for the non/converts, extermination of their inheritance on earth.  This is commonly portrayed either Matthew 28:19 “the Great Commission,” or in allegiance to the Vicar of Christ on earth (aka a foreign country called the Vatican), or as I learned recently re: the LDS, because a woman needs a man to get into heaven, and make more spirit children. . . 

Or, because the True Parents of all (one of who recently, ah, died, i.e. Rev. Sun Myung Moon) said that all must marry and the globe is better off with just one religion, and one married propagating couple (Jesus messed up) in charge of it.  This group is definitely instrumental in pushing the Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood movement in the US; I have found their influence in the CRC, in pushing for more funding as sponsored by an Illinois congressperson (2010).   This group is not the focus of today’s post, but here’a s sample of beliefs, as well as a brief introduction to the history of the Unification Church:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/unificat.htm

History:

The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity was organized in 1954 in Seoul, South Korea by Rev. Sun Myung Moon ["One who has clarified the Truth"]. . ..

Rev. Moon was born in what is now North Korea in 1920 and was raised in the Presbyterian Church. He is a Professional Engineer by training. When he was 15 years old, at Easter, he believes that Jesus Christ appeared to him in a vision, charging him with the responsibility of completing the work in the world that Jesus had started. During his adult life he has had trouble with legal authorities, having been arrested for practicing capitalism (a crime in North Korea), charged (but not convicted) in South Korea of other activities, and convicted of tax evasion in the United States. During 1948, the Presbyterian Church of Korea felt that his views were incompatible with traditional Christianity; they excommunicated him.

. . .

On 1994-MAY, the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity celebrated their 40th anniversary in Seoul, Korea. It was a type of watershed for the movement. Reverend Moon announced the merger of all of his religious, political, cultural and business organizations, — including the  CAUSA, Free Press International, International Cultural Foundation, International Religious Foundation, Korean Folk Ballet, Washington Times – into a new group: the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (FFWPU).

Reverend Moon initiated a National Messiahship program in 1995. This involved the selection of four families to lead the movement in each country. One family was from Korea, one from Japan, one from America, France, or Great Britain, and one from Austria, Germany or Italy.

On 1999-FEB-6, the Inter-religious and International Federation for World Peace was formed. Its mission is “to implement a system through which the highest expressions of religious wisdom are brought to the table at which the world’s most serious and urgent problems are being addressed … by creating a council of religious leaders within the framework of the United Nations.”

Among the various beliefs:

bulletbullet They view God as a single being with “perfect intellect, emotion and will”. They reject the traditional Christian concept of the Trinity. God contains within himself positive (male) and negative (female) aspects, which are in perfect harmony with each other.The Holy Spirit is the feminine counterpart to God. She is not a person, but is a form of energy that is derived from God.
bullet Before Adam and Eve’s were married in Eden, Eve had an affair with the Archangel Lucifer. This caused the spiritual fall of mankind. She later engaged in an pre-marital sexual relationship with Adam. This caused the physical fall of mankind. Together, these illicit sexuality caused them to form an imperfect family. Their sin led to Satan taking control of the world.

Interesting — Eve caused the spiritual AND physical fall of mankind, Adam hardly mentioned as an initiator, barely as a participant.  Now picture this mentality — add in a few more Christian religions which also credit the fall of the world to Eve (at least in their reading of the scriptures), and as a result, Eve (and her descendants absent a certain chromosome) must be controlled, in fact, married off — to redeem the world. . . .

Did I mention, who might be the third Adam, and that as it turns out, Rev. Moon actually divorced his first wife…

Rev Moon coronation.

AND, guess who’s entertained this couple and promoted its interests, from within Congress and/or the White House, in recent years or in the last quarter of the 1900s?  to put it mildly — you’d recognize their names; one is currently US Secretary of State; another a former President (Republican), another, an Illinois Congressman, and we actually have (or had – I’m not tracking all congressmen in different states) — a Unification Church member who is also a member of the US Congress — from Arizona.  His testimony for marriage promotion is at the bottom of this post; Rep. Mark Anderson.   

See a 2008 report by the same group which I quoted recently, on a New Age group running the University of Santa Monica, its guru (some escapees from the cult) and at least one graduate’s specific ties to fatherhood programming in the WDC area:

This link shows how State Rep. Mark Anderson, head of a year 2000 Marriage Commission (which he headed) helped ensure a crony (head of “NAME” // Leo Godzich) got the contracts for marriage promotion — and how marriage promotion is a Unification agenda, because single people can’t be saved…

26 July 2008

Almost ten years ago the Mesa Tribune reportedabout how Anderson’s actions as an elected official were often closely aligned to Rev. Moon’s agenda. CultNews has now learned from a reliable source that Anderson’s political pandering to his religious leader apparently has continued unabated.

Rev. Moon teaches his disciples that singles should not expect a happy hereafter and that marriage is a requirement for salvation and entering heaven. Matrimony also plays a pivotal role in Moon’s theology.  He calls himself the “Lord of the Second Advent” who provides a “physical salvation,” which Jesus was unable to accomplish, because he was executed and didn’t marry. It is largely because of these beliefs that Moon has presided over mass weddings, often marrying thousands of his followers simultaneously.

Mark Anderson appears to be dutifully following Moon’s dogma as a state legislator. In the Spring of 2000 he sponsored a bill that successfully passed and created a “Marriage and Communication Skills Commission.”

Funded by Arizona’s taxpayers, the purpose of the Commission is to recognize “the importance of marriage.” Beyond this the Commission also doles out funding for “workshops” and “programs,” which are provided through contractors.

And guess who is co-chairman of the Arizona marriage commission? None other than Mark Anderson (photo left), who has substantial influence concerning which contractors receive state money.

Five states have created marriage commissions including Arizona, South Carolina, Utah, Louisiana and Michigan. But only Arizona allows its Commission to choose, which community agencies receive a contract  …{{the article then goes on to mention who the Commission chose — not the highest ranked vendor, but an associate, “NAME” — National Association for Marriage Enhancement.   I’ve blogged them…}}

Please click on that link to this Godzich (Molly & Dr. Leo) organization and look at the list of books flashing on the home page — at the left, with purple color, is one (by Leo Godzich) whose title is partially covered up — probably no accident, as it reads:  ‘MEN ARE FROM DIRT, WOMEN ARE FROM MEN.”  Who, incidentally, recently died…    There are GWBush, Amway & Assemblies of God connections among the Godzich family — just read this 2012 article (scroll down)….Marriage Mobiles? (2004 press, p.  of 26 of a newspaper)  My July 2011 blog, “Bush Faith-Based Initiatives in the Hands of Obama” has 31 refs to “godzich” and explains some of the connections, as found on-line.

SO – - – - -

It seems that in promoting marriage, fatherhood & abstinence, at least three so-called Christian religions and a so-called (by the others) sect have laid aside their (theology) to unite the ma$$es against a common enemy . . . .

Women.  

While the enemy may be demonized with the name “divorce” — a closer look shows what it’s really about is. . . . 

Women unapologetically unattached, unrepentantly single mothers, or simply women with their eyes — and mouths — open telling truthfully about what they have experienced, and seen, even if it includes what their husbands or partners just did to them — or their (mutual) children.  

Women with their heads and hearts connected, and who can see straight, including when marriage in general, or in specific, is turning out to be a very bad – or dangerous — deal.

Closer examined, it might was well be called “Medusa.”

Apparently, united, and catechized, unapologetically single (particularly if single mothers), we must be a fearsome force in someone’s collective subconscious (and private collaborations?), given the effort put into making sure that doesn’t happen.  This is probably justified, because, unrestrained, we might raise a second generation possessing these qualities, i.e. drawing a line in the sand about abuse.  Ourselves.  And that once having said no to it in marriage, the next step would be no, in the religious institutions, and from there, government.  I think that’s probably a fair assessment!  Who knows, we might, having gotten in the habit of saying “No” just start saying no to — wars, and kicking out more children to participate in them.   Or supporting the 501(c)3s and building projects with more bake sales, or fundraising campaigns.

So – - - Did you know that . . .

. . .the first wife of Joseph Smith was opposed to polygamy, and that the 19th — or 27th or so of Brigham Young wrote a book about it in 1875 (which can be read on-line, even).  At 67, he married this 24 year old woman.. Based on the book she wrote (and published) in 1875, another one was written in 1961 called “the 27th wife.”

A family’s history finds out that an ancestor was Brigham Young’s youngest wife at least to date…(she was b. 1838, married him in 1863, being 24 yrs old, and he, 62.  Her parents had converted to Mormonism when she was three…

Stories were told by various wives of Brigham Young stating she and Brigham had their dinners at seperate tables from the rest of the wives and ate delicacies not served to the rest of the wives and children.

Some quotes of this 2nd prophet of the religion.  At least per this guy:

matt slick

At least according to a site quoting an ex-Mormon woman journalist, Deborah Laake;..

The Role of Women in Mormonism

This article is used with the author’s permission. I found it to be particularly insightful. This might help explain to the readers why for every letter I get from a man, I get 4 letters from women who were Mormons. This ratio has held consistent now for the last 3 months. – Eric 2/9/96.

(This article is shocking.  I have linked to it…  here are the first several paragraphs.  NOTE:  while some practices may have changed, the attitudes underlying them — and the religious beliefs — have not.   Therefore it’s hardly surprising who was the first state governor to make this proclamation.)

Author’s name: Jessica Longaker

The Bibliography is on the bottom of this page

Religious Studies 263

March 27, 1995

Women and Mormonism

Many religions have recently begun changing in an attempt to equalize the roles and responsibilities of men and women. Mormonism is one of the exceptions. The Mormon position on women has changed little since the early 1800′s, when the official view was that “woman’s primary place is in the home, where she is to rear children and abide by the righteous counsel of her husband” (McConkie 844). This attitude, coupled with the doctrine of polygamy and the absolute power claimed by the men of the church, created a legacy of profound sexism which modern Mormonism has been unable to escape.

see:


Wife no.19, or the story of a life in bondage.

Being a complete exposé of Mormonism, and revealing the sorrows, sacrifices and sufferings of women in polygamy

by Ann Eliza Young, Brigham Young’s apostate wife. With introductory notes by John B. Gough and Mary A. Livermore. Published 1876 by Dustin, Gilman in Hartford

 .

A lithograph of Ann Eliza Young, sometime between 1869 and 1875

Written in English.

THIS IS FROM Wikipedia:

Ann Eliza Young (September 13, 1844–December 7, 1917) also known as Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning[1] was one of Brigham Young‘s fifty-five wives and later a critic of polygamy.[2]She spoke out against the suppression of women and was an advocate for women’s rights during the 19th century.[3]  

On the advice of her family Webb later married Brigham Young, the second president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), when he was 67 years old and she was a 24-year-old divorcee.[2]

Although she later called herself Young’s “wife no. 19,” others have referred to her as his “27th wife.” One researcher concluded that she was actually the 52nd woman to marry Young.[5] The discrepancies may be due, in part, to difficulties in defining what constitutes a ‘wife’ in early Mormon polygamous practices.

Webb filed for divorce from Young in January 1873, an act that attracted much attention. Her bill for divorce alleged neglect, cruel treatment, and desertion, and claimed that her husband had property worth $8,000,000 and an income exceeding $40,000 a month. Young countered that he owned less than $600,000 in property and that his income was less than $6000 per month.[6]

She was excommunicated from the LDS Church on 10 October 1874.[5][7] The divorce was granted in January 1875 and Brigham Young was ordered to pay a $500 per month allowance and $3000 in court fees.[5] When Young initially refused, he was found in contempt of court and sentenced to a day in jail and a $25 fine.[5] The alimony award was later set aside on the grounds that a polygamous marriage was legally invalid, potentially indicting them both for unlawful cohabitation.[5]

Ann Eliza Young subsequently traveled the United States and spoke out against polygamy, Mormonism, and Brigham Young himself.[8] She testified before the U.S. Congress in 1875; …

In 1876, she published an autobiography entitled Wife No. 19. In it she wrote that she had “a desire to impress upon the world what Mormonism really is; to show the pitiable condition of its women, held in a system of bondage that is more cruel than African slavery ever was, since it claims to hold body and soul alike.”[3] Her account of the “horrors of polygamy and masonry” is available from various sources.[9][10] It was the basis of Irving Wallace’s 1961 biography, The Twenty-Seventh Wife, and of David Ebershoff’s 2008 novel, The 19th Wife.


Mormonism has created an ingenious system of oppression, in which opposition towards men is tantamount to arguing with God. The Mormon religion makes no distinction between clergy and laity, at least with regard to men (Laake 9). All Mormon men are ordained as members of the “priesthood,” with the absolute authority to preach the gospel, bestow blessings, prophecy, perform healings and baptisms, and generally speak for God. “Their priesthood gives them the right to advise and instruct the Saints (i.e., Mormons), and their jurisdiction extends over all things . ..

Anyhow, here’s an interesting commentary on Brigham Young’s estate.  Exactly how DOES that work, when one has been propagating and replenishing the earth, heartily so — but has not been replenishing funds borrowed from the church prior to one’s death?  

March 10, 1879 NYTimes article — very upbeat — describing this situation, including that he had, surprise, surprise, a previous marriage (and offspring) while yet still a Methodist.  

The article reads like a gossip column, makes mention of “Gentile law,” and tells some tales of misconduct and abuse by the patriarch or offspring: 

  • For example, the 5th wife, a Lucy Bigelow, had three daughters – but one of them off and married an Episcopal clergyman, enraging “Dad.” “According to Mormon law, they are not married at all, but it does not seem to trouble her, or her good husband.
  • Some women who couldn’t have children, adopted them:  “according to Mormon creed, every woman must appear in eternity with children or be a nonentity.  If they cannot have their own, they must adopt and raise some other woman’s children.  A woman with 10 or 12 children is much respected in Zion.”

There is also some retaliatory situations, and abuse, you can see it the next generation down:

  • A son of Brigham marries, and visits his wife’s relation (cousin) in Philadelphia, marries the cousin (the dirty rotten scoundrel) , bringing her back and insists his first wife kiss her.  First wife refuses  and is promptly locked in the closet (away from her kids) til she gives in.  Released from the closet, she then seeks and gets a divorce….But the Son Joseph remains in high position and style.
  • However privileges of being a BY Daughter do not apply.  The oldest by his first (Mormon) wife;  “Alice,” is too spirited and soon punished, by Dad, for flirting while her fiance is out of state in this manner….Dad dispatches the man she flirted with to go convert some heathen and gives his own daughter to his private secretary to marry, making her this man’s 3rd wife  . . . she bears him “several” children but hated polygamy, was “not a very good mother,” and eventually — it seems, or is implied, committed suicide by poison. This is, one of Brigham Young’s daughters, in fact the oldest one.
  • . . . apparently there was a practice of ‘sealing” a woman to a man by proxy — to save her from damnation.  Wife #20 was converted by Young and left her husband and children to turn to Mormonism…. musta been quite the charmer….

This is less than two hundred years ago, ladies and gentlemen… the 1870s….  Imagine being indoctrinated to believe one must compete for breeding capacity and affection with other women and not even be freed from this status by death; hardly a healthy situation for anyone.

And if we think we got troubles now when a parent dies and siblings  argue . just imagine!!  

Brigham Young’s Estate

Brigham Young, second president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was born on June 1, 1801 in Vermont. He came from a family of eleven children {{9th of 11; his mother died when he was about 14}} and went on to become a farmer and carpenter. Before joining Mormonism in 1832, Brigham Young was a member of the Methodist Church. He was made an LDS apostle in 1835 and secretly took his first plural wife in 1842. Joseph Smith had not presented polygamy publicly to the church, only to a few select leaders. Brigham had 57 children by sixteen women but was married to possibly as many as 57 women. Brigham took over the leadership of the Mormon Church after the death of Joseph Smith in 1844.

LDS historian Leonard J. Arrington wrote:

    “Brigham Young and other church authorities, when need required it, drew on the tithing resources of the church, and at a later date repaid part or all of the obligation in money, property, or services. No interest seems to have been paid for the use of these funds…. This ability to draw, almost at will, on church as well as his own funds, was a great advantage to Brigham Young and was certainly one of the reasons for his worldly success…. while Brigham Young was probably thelargest borrower of funds from the trustee-in-trust, he was certainly not the only one.” (“The Settlement of the Brigham Young Estate,” 1877-1879, Reprinted from the Pacific Historical Review, vol. 21, no. 1, Feb. 1952, p.7-8)

LDS scholar Jeffrey Johnson observed:

    “By his death on 23 August 1877, Brigham Young had married fifty-five wives. Nineteen had predeceased him, ten had received divorces, four are unaccounted for, and twenty-three survived him. Seventeen wives received a share of his estate while the remaining six apparently had nonconjugal roles.” (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, (“Defining ‘Wife’: The Brigham Young Households,” by Jeffrey Johnson, 1987, Vol. 20, No. 3, p.62)

LDS historians James Allen and Glen Leonard observed:

    “It was finally determined that his estate was worth approximately $1,626,000, but obligations of more than a million dollars to the Church plus other debts and executor’s fees reduced the family’s claim to $224,000. When seven of his dissatisfied heirs challenged this settlement, however, that matter was settled out of court and the Church agreed to give the heirs an additional $75,000.” (The Story of the Latter-day Saints, by James Allen and Glen Leonard, second ed. 1992, Deseret Book, p.385)

The Sealings complicate the matter of civil vs. temporal marriages, unbelievably so, and affecting children. YOU “go figure” after reading the Wikipedia description; this is only part, and has to do with the fact that marriage, supposedly — well SOME kinds of marriages — prevail after death.  After all, the human body is just a spirit-passing-through-it- phenomenon . . . . .  All is about multiplying, I suppose, and family relationships.  One can see why such a mentality (even if polygamy is NOT practiced nowadays) may cause a religion to place extra, extra value on “Family relationships” than may be evident at first glance.

Again, I’m speaking as someone from a non-Mormon background whose ex still tries to pull that cat out of the hat from time to time; confrontations on the fact we’re separated are responded to with the “God” excuse.  In fact, the “God” excuse is handy for rationalizing any and all of this person’s (in my opinion) despicable, and definitely illegal, behaviors.   If someone on here is a practicing Mormon and believes this information to be inaccurately represented, the comments field is open (but cite some sources, please!)

Sealings

Faithful Latter Day Saints believe civil marriages are dissolved at death if they are not later solemnized with a sealing, but that a couple who has been sealed in a temple will be married beyond physical death and the Resurrection if they remain righteous. This means that in the afterlife they and their family will be together forever. An illustrative difference in the marriage ceremony performed in LDS temples is the replacement of the words “until death do us part” with “for time and all eternity”.

The LDS Church recognizes other monogamous, heterosexual marriages, both civil and religious, although they believe that such marriages will not continue after death because “Eternal Marriages” must be performed by Priesthood authority. However, “Eternal Marriages” are also performed vicariously for the deceased so that once all the prior temple ordinances are completed for a deceased individual, couples who were not sealed during their life may accept the proxy sealing to each other and their children.

Couples who have children born to them before the couple is sealed, may have their children sealed to them after the couple is sealed. Couples who have children after being sealed do not have to have their children sealed to them in a separate ceremony. Children born to sealed parents are “born in the covenant” and are automatically sealed to their parents. Adopted children may be sealed to their adoptive parents once the adoption has been legally finalized.

Although a divorce legally dissolves a civilly-recognized marriage, the Church still recognizes a sealed couple as being sealed. A couple who has been sealed may request to have their sealing “canceled”, but this is uncommon, occurs only under special circumstances and is only granted by the President of the Church. Some refer informally to a “cancellation” as a “temple divorce”, but the terminology designated by Church leaders is “cancellation of a sealing”. If a sealing is canceled, the sealing between them and any children remains in force, though the couple is no longer sealed, as the sealing together of husband and wife and the sealing of parents to children are separate ordinances.[1]

Imagine trying to keep this straight, the various relationships between mortals and immortals, and making sure that polygamy –but not polyandry — is possible in heaven, registering the assent or dissent from deceased individuals to proxy sealings,  monitoring who’s been naughty and who’s been nice (on earth) AND running the very earthly workings of a the largest global owner of assets, wars, and the world’s largest per capita jailor (i.e., the USA) — in a country which doesn’t, at least most of the country, endorse all this...Mormons may be the majority of spirit beings ruling the planets in heaven, but I don’t believe they are on earth yet . . . .

If this is the degree of suspended reality bred into a lifestyle and life purpose —  how can such a person be trusted to be in “reality mode” as opposed to “evangelism mode” while in office?

Elsewhere, I am working on a “Cold Hard Facts” blog, but in showing the “scope of the issues” and again, this Oklahoma marriage Initiative’s history and the personal backgrounds of some of its promoters, I have got to again sound the alarm on how very hateful and repressive these practices are.

And how very adept they are at subjugating half their own flocks, namely the female half — administratively, religiously, and economically.    Women are treated as breeding population for evangelistic reasons in perhaps one religion — for spiritual reasons, it turns out (for the Mormons) — and for most likely unidentified reasons for the remainder.

These religious evangelical power-hungry, women-as-a-gender-hating individuals are heading towards the HHS fields, the Governor’s offices (or Governor-appointed offices), the counseling fields, and the marriage therapy fields in literally troops and droves.  They are sometimes raised in exclusively their own religious traditions, and we should ALL understand that these are polarized days, and this can no longer be ignored.  Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney was raised in the Mormon tradition.  Former Republican hopeful, Rick Santorum — the Catholic.   This unbelievable — in our day and time — attack on single mothers BECAUSE they are single mothers (regardless of behavior and characteristics) and in women in particular, has been slick, strategized and is religious in nature.

If you wish to skip the explanatory part and get right to the documentation, scroll down for this heading:

GOVERNOR MARRIAGE INITIATIVES:

Which came from a smartmarriages “legislation” site.   It again sank home to me today, how very very religious was the background of Jerry Regier (involved in the startup of the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, which I was again referring to, as it became a statewide model in how to divert welfare funds into marriage education, etc.).  
Then in a “Governor’s Initiatives” section, I noticed that one of the first states was Utah.  Obviously  this led to a reference to Mormons, and the LDS (which also had as a background my personal awareness of many grants occurring in UTAH).    In the last few posts, it seems there was some connection to who started up the California Healthy Marriages Coalition (from a major Episcopalian church in Sacramento) with a certain group in Independence, MO — which ended up being a split-off from the Mormons anyhow, called “Community of Christ.”  They like big buildings:
Swirly Rocket Ship Temple.
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/15987

Here’s a well-known installation in the SF Bay Area (Oakland):

Oakland California Mormon Temple

© 2009, Glenn Hickman. All rights reserved.

this site has photos of many of the temples (though is “NOT” it says, an official LDS site….).  here’s the washington, D.C. temple: © 2012, Eric C. Jorgensen. All rights reserved.

Washington D.C. Mormon Temple

of white Alabama marble.

Of course, most religions seem to like their buildings — it’s apparently what they do — and often other events take place around them.  Gothic cathedrals, St. Peter’s, etc. etc.   . . . . . Here’s a recent one in Oakland, California dedicated in 2008, called “Christ the Light” and is the local cathedral (previous one had earthquake damage; there was a 1989 major earthquake in this area)…

Image GalleryImage Gallery

The Making of the Omega Window
Oakland, California
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

By Suzanne Stephens

The ethereal, 58-foot-high Christ figure for the Omega Window in Oakland California’s Cathedral of Christ the Light, designed by Craig Hartman, FAIA, and Skidmore Owing & Merrill’s San Francisco office, usually generates considerable wonderment. Rather than a stained-glass window or a carved stone sculpture, here is a large gray and white apparition. SOM used a digital image of a high-relief Romanesque sculpture to create an artwork of anodized aluminum with 154 panels, where {{94,000}} laser-cut perforations allow daylight to seep through and luminously recreate the Christ figure. While the execution of such a work may have been (slightly) less time-consuming than carving one of marble, the complex process required is impressive, and the results dramatic.

(from the Architectural Digest 2009 article on this building):
 At this point, a circular chapel and campanile have not been added to the cathedral, which is now estimated to have cost $112.9 million for the construction plus fittings, furnishings, and equipment.

The major surprise comes from encountering the 58-foot-high apparition of Christ, based on a Romanesque sculptural relief (1145–1150) on the Royal Portal of the west facade of Chartres Cathedral. Rather than erecting a stained-glass window behind the altar, the architectural team took a digital image of the Chartres Christ and created a mammoth artwork with 94,000 laser-cut perforations on 10-by-5-foot anodized-aluminum panels. Light admitted through the translucent frosted film on the glass of the north-facing Omega Window seeps softly through the panels. The process enhances the image’s ethereal quality: The Christ seems to float like a hologram above the circular altar.

What I am telling us is that the religious groups are experts in literally every quality which could be extremely dangerous and negative in public office and which innately suits them to any oppressive regime, including the pretense of altruism, personal ethics (which many don’t hold) and the underlying serious dispute with the U.S. Constitution, women having had the vote, and the Bill of Rights.

And they are adept at functioning as alien cultures within the United States (having been here for a long time, over a century for many), at moving money and attracting it, and at stigmatizing anyone who disagrees.

I do not seek to go back to those times — but I DO seek to get to a time when words mean something, and are not simply symbols and signs of what gang or tribe one hangs out with (whether religious jargon, psychological jargon, or governmental jargon).   I can’t and won’t say more than this, because familycourtmatters is not a religious blog — it’s a personal and political one.

I am repeatedly brought back through these, and through reading the religious talk also, to a very, very disturbing truth:

So, let me repeat this information.   No one in his or her right mind should be letting people with extremely religious upbringings, or currently maintained beliefs — into public office and taking a salary for it.  That office and that position WILL be transformed and centralized (to collect power and influence) supposedly for public purposes — but in actuality, for religious and evangelical purposes.  This is what institutionalized religion of any stripe seeks to do — it is what institutions, period, do.

Their allegiances are NOT to this country or its laws, either, except where it suits them.    Some are to Rome, others are to their spiritual forebears or current pastors and ministers.  And well over a thousand years of repression, wars, propaganda, and selling spiritual privileges and status — which is the heritage  — is not easily overcome, nor has it been.

We are constantly hearing — and I believe correctly, having also experienced degrees of this — cases where religious people trap, molest, and enslave individual children, or young women and men — in their service and in their residences, until these flee, break out, or escape — by persistence, desperation, or sometimes sheer luck.   Maybe by “the grace of God.”   Or, they will help one sector of the population, for example the homeless, while oppressing another sector.  For example, sorry to keep raising the point, but – - – women.

  • odan.org
  • Steve Hassan (former Moonie), “Combatting Cult Control.” “Freedom of Mind
    • In 1979, following the Jonestown tragedy, Hassan founded a non-profit organization called “Ex-Moon Inc.”, whose membership consisted of over four hundred former members of the Unification Church.[2]According to his biography, “During the 1977-78 Congressional Subcommittee Investigation into South Korean CIA activities in the United States, he consulted as an expert on the Moon organization and provided information and internal documents regarding Moon’s desire to influence politics in his bid to ‘take over the world.’”[2]Around 1980, Hassan began investigating methods of persuasionmind control and indoctrination. He first studied the thought reform theories of Robert Lifton, and was “able to see clearly that the Moon organization uses all eight” of the thought reform methods described by Lifton.[3]. . .Hassan writes that cults recruit members through a three-step process which he refers to as “unfreezing,” “changing,” and “refreezing,” respectively.  {{Hegelian/ Kurt Lewin, etc., concepts}} This involves the use of an extensive array of various techniques, including systematic deception, behavior modification, withholding of information, and emotionally intense persuasion techniques (such as the induction of phobias), which he collectively terms mind control.[20]In the same book he also writes “I suspect that most cult groups use informal hypnotic techniques to induce trance states. They tend to use what are called “naturalistic” hypnotic techniques. Practicing meditation to shut down thinking, chanting a phrase repetitively for hours, or reciting affirmations are all powerful ways to promote spiritual growth. But they can also be used unethically, as methods for mind control indoctrination.”[4]

Just a note:  Many cults will call practices of other cults, or religion, cult-like behaviors.  Steve Hassan, as it turns out, practices hypnosis but asserts speaking in tongues is bad.  I don’t know what his experience with the latter is, however my reading of the Bible is that “speaking in tongues” is good, i.e., an evidence of rebirth and the presence of “holy spirit” and hypnosis (or consulting familiar spirits, any forms of occultism, etc. are, values-wise), is “bad.”  If individuals wish to practice either, on themselves, by themselves — fine.  There are always times in life when a person may be over-analyzing, over-intellectual and in short, working one part of their brain so hard, that it’s time to switch gears, modes, or do something different.  That’s why people have both affective and cognitive parts to them — and it only makes sense to keep these in some sort of balance; not going 100% to one side or the other. . .

However — the power of hypnosis UPON others is not neutral, in my opinion.

The root word & prefix of “hypnosis” indicates that “gnosis” (experiential knowledge) is put UNDER (‘hupo” being the opposite of “hyper,” right?) (out of commission) for a while.  It’s not a matter of “thought-stopping” but complete consciousness-stopping that would seem to be dangerous.  The other thing with hypnotists is they are often seeking subjects.  I brought this out recently in discussing the Saybrook Institute, the “University of Santa Monica” (hardly a traditional “university”) and “M.S.I.A.” (which is pronounced like “Messiah” and the founder of which (per one “escapee”) claims was a cult leader, not to mention a plaigiarist and a fraud). . . . .

I believe that when the US military has been experimenting through various forms of abuse in how to induce this state in subjects (without there awareness or memory), it’s safe to say — that’s a bad practice!  And yet it’s commonly marketed as solving all sorts of addictions, obsessions, and even (I have seen this in a religious nonprofit, too), PTSD.

As a musician and one who’s been around a lot of styles of religious music through this, I am very familiar with the concept of cults attempting to produce “trance states,” in fact some types of “praise” music now commonly used in the (not considered “cults”) Christian churches appear to be designed to do this. It’s simply monotonous in harmony, beat, and words.  I have seen this.   The combination of words is extremely limited in ideas (which the Bible is not) and of harmonies and melodies, ditto.

Hassan also asserts that mind-control (thought-stopping) techniques are not inherently destructive or productive.  For the record, I disagree, and consider “hypnosis” an inappropriate practice — fully realizing how widespread it is, and unacceptable my viewpoint may be.

When Rev. Sun Myung Moon died recently, he left behind a business empire — dealing in things like construction, media, even distributing raw fish for sushi. But he also headed up a religious cult — he claimed to be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. And for decades, young people in countries around the world joined Moon’s Unification Church.. . . .

Sun Myung Moon

Mourners bow in front of the portrait of the late Rev. Sun Myung Moon during a memorial service in Gapyeong, South Korea on Sept. 6, 2012. (Lee Jin-man / AP Photo)

(See article that goes with the photo . . . . .)

(Hassan’s elements of “BITE” — Behavior, Information, Thought, Emotional Control)  According to this breakdown, major elements of the US Government would be classified as a cult . . . . .

Moreover, socialist-origin groups (such as I showed in the IAF/PICO matters) are also gravitating to churches because of their networks.  The Bush family, historically, had no problem with churches, as “The Family” or “House at C Street” (By Jeff Sharlett) relate.

On the other blog, I looked again at some Smartmarriage information and noticed that among the first Governors to move on Marriage, we had the states of Utah, Arkansas & Oklahoma.  Two are below the Bible belt, and Utah obviously is home to the Mormon church, a real stronghold.

People from California involved in the Prop-8 (same-sex marriage) issue may be aware that conservative Christian leadership from in California called (and I DNR if took some money from) the Mormons to assess whether their cause would fly or not.  No mainline Christian group is likely to endorse homosexuality and the more adamant among them will be framed principally around opposing: Homosexuality; abortion, and divorce, especially no-fault divorce.

These are parallel with the crowd that promotes, if a mother won’t share well with an abusive father, she should forfeit contact with her children entirely — even if the reason for protesting equal custody relates to what that father has done to the mother, or to the children at the time.

Personal:

I was in this category.  This appears to relate EXACTLY to why I spent a generation surviving abuse, then almost immediately afterwards fighting to retain custody of my kids while supporting them (as the father fell further and further behind in child support and, having gotten the restraining order removed, and not having full-time work to keep him socialized, which is to say, busy — began affecting my ability to hold work.

Eventually, in my ignorance — that is, 100% ignorance –of welfare reform matters  and this entire movement, although I was hearing words about “backlash” etc. — I made another pro-active and positive decision for THIS household (the one I was responsible for) and a legal and beneficial one for the children who were in my full custody at the time.  To mention more details would be to sign my name to this blog which (you may note), I’m still not doing, with good reason.  As such I had no tools to look at who was buffeting this (and other) families in the family court realm — while others were buffeting them elsewhere.  The language of domestic violence explains nothing about federal incentives to the states, which then are funneled to faith-based groups to solicit Dads in Arrears on their child support, or men in prison, to help them IN FAMILY COURT, get more access to their children which, allegedly, the bad single mothers are keeping them from.  

On the “home front,” I therefore had to deal with an ex, and extended family with an aggressive male in it who was giving orders illegally and without jurisdiction, to me, as a woman then in my mid-40s, and with competence to make my own life decisions, thank you!!!

I had the professional background and college degrees to fully support that ability. . . . .  And with the courts.  . . . And with as it turned out (post-restraining order removal) the police, who were NOT backing up the court orders, for the most part — which left me yet an additional task, finding someone who would.

I also attempted to work with the child support agency (which was more than useless, until the father suddenly — overnight and illegally — got possession of the children simply by retaining it.  At this point in time, the child support sprang into action — curtailing his obligations and failing to enforce any of the significant (thousands of $$ of arrears), which was an economic double-whammy to a single mother committing no crime other than attempting to work safely, and encourage a standard of compliance with the law for her offspring, and her ex — plus assert independence from an abusive family of origin who were against this independence.

My simple solution of enforcing existing court orders for a stability, was utterly rejected — and again and again we were forced into mediation, where major life decisions are made in a single session; whoever doesn’t agree then goes before a court.   And I still didn’t know about access visitation funding from 1996, as of ten years later, representing just how IGNORANT women are kept by agencies and nonprofits supposedly serving them!   How many people would on their own know to look at the Federal HHS and politics from the 1990s when dealing with local court situations post 9/11?

HOW I FOUND OUT:  I found out by progressively over time rejecting answers that didn’t hold water, and by continuing to look.  Period.  I began to look into, for one, the history of the family courts — which was a fruitful field.

~ ~ ~ ~ So I feel very urgent about this matter; and about handling the resistance of certain advocacy groups to publicizing it.  We HAVE to have a valid history of what happened from this point of view; and time after time, people who have written this — typically outsiders and/or loaners (i.e., not members of the governmental or corporate elite — or those on their payrolls) — have been shut up, ignored, and etc.   While the HHS dumps money at the outset of ANY movement into a major resource center, conferences, and media campaigns.  It does this whether through a nonprofit, or directly from its own web pages!

OK, so I had to (being so affected by reading the material) remove this information from my COLD HARD FACTS 2nd post, about “Scope of the Issues.”    I would like to start desensitizing myself to the matter, but the fact is, I believe the situation is beyond unacceptable, and needs to be written up.

People who are NOT religious (do not believe in resurrection, spirit, “God” per se, etc. . . .. I happen to believe that man is a religious animal and will make one up where none shows up that appeals) — and who may be generally speaking aware of some of the issues — would do very well to force themselves to read some of this material and correlate it to 2012.  It is absolutely related to 2012 and your bottom line, plus this country.

By ‘religion’ I mean the outer institutions, and not the inner spirituality or ethics.  You need to understand WHAT you are dealing with, and how it affects all of us to subjugate half of us based on what too many of “us” who gravitate to places of power and influence — believe about previous lives and next lives when it comes to — women.  And that means ALL women.

From the Smartmarriage.com site there is information citizens should know about which governors are doing what, shortly after “Welfare Reform” and how this pre-planned “marriage movement” focuses on the executive branch of government, after which there are “commissions” voted in by state legislatures named after the pre-planned agenda.  the word “TANF-set-asides” gets into the Cold,Hard.Fact$ topic we need to discuss.

http://www.smartmarriages.com/legislation.html#governor%27s

Marriage Education Legislation – marriage license incentives, TANF set-asides, etc

Divorce Legislation

State Marriage Handbooks

Covenant Legislation

Governor Marriage InitiativesFederal Legislation

GOVERNOR MARRIAGE INITIATIVES:

Coming to your state soon, or already there . . . . .  not to be ignored…. Notice How this was done, and if possible, see the Congressional Testimony pages.

  • In 1998 and 1999, for the first time, governors in three states, Utah,Oklahoma, and Arkansas publicly made reducing the divorce rate a goalof their administration.
  • Utah Governor’s Commission on Marriage - In 1998, Governor Michael Leavittorganized the nation’s first Governor’s Commission on Marriage and charged the Commissionwith the task of identifying programs and tools to strengthenmarriage in the state.
  • He and First Lady Jacalyn Leavitt gave the opening address at the 1999 Smart Marriages conference laying out the blueprintsfor Utah’s statewide conferences that teach marriage skills to couples. 

UTAH IS KNOWN FOR ITS MORMON / LDS POPULATION, CORRECT?  IS THIS SURPRISING, THEN?   FROM “Mormonbeliefs.com” — this may not be common knowledge — they believe that the marriage lasts past death and is eternal (among other things), and that Constantine (325AD) really messed this up. . . . .  There are many Mormon beliefs at conflict with basic, understood, concepts of liberty in the USA.   To my understanding, the more standard forms of Christianity do NOT teach that marriages are eternal and endure past the resurrection.  Moral of this lesson:  Don’t let people who believe, hang around this mentality and haven’t specifically rejected it, this run government!

(There are three sources for quotes on this topic below, with different colored backgrounds, in addition to the tan-background original quotation on “Governor’s Legislative Options.”)

MARRIAGE, SEX, ADULTERY, HOMOSEXUALITY” BY SAMUEL E. WEST, ELDER

. . .It is the hope of the author that men and women might understand the goodness of proper sex; and the severe penalties that will be imposed by God upon improper sex.  . . .  The two most grievous sins of man—against man—involve killing and improper sex.

There are two forms of marriage: one spiritual and the other temporal.  Spiritual marriages exist only between members of the kingdom of God .  Like other spiritual ordinances (e.g. baptism) it is for eternity; unless broken through disobedience.  Only those marriages performed by officers of the priesthood appointed of God to administer the sacrament of marriage can seal the marriage for time and eternity.  All other marriages are temporal and are valid only for life.

Spiritual marriage is one of the greatest blessings given to the saints of God.  Like other spiritual ordinances it remains in eternity, “she may be thine in life, thine in the resurrection, and thine in life everlasting; and that the children which she beareth thee, may be with thee in the everlasting Kingdom.” (Book of the Law, p. 159)  No words can describe how wonderful it will be to have your family together for eternity.

{{GET THIS:}}  The Christian church lost all divine authority in 325 AD, when an unbaptized, pagan Roman Emperor, Constantine , stood as the absolute head of the Christian church.  Even a knowledge of the Levitical and Melchisedec Priesthoods was lost. Christians were left to be married only “until death do you part.” . . .

 There were both spiritual and temporal marriages in Israel.  Sarah was Abraham’s spiritual wife.  They were both members of the kingdom of God .  They will be together in the land of their inheritance with their offspring forever.  The other two wives of Abraham (Hagar and Keturah) were concubines or temporal wives.  Ishmael was actually the first born son of Abraham by Hagar; but, he was not born of a spiritual marriage.  His progeny became the Arabs.  Isaac being born of Sarah, his spiritual wife (being sealed for time and eternity), was declared by the law of God to inherit the right of first born son.

Temporal marriages are created by civil law; and are valid only for life. . . .

Marriage between believers and unbelievers is defective; as it continues only “until death do you part.”  A betrothalconfers the general rights and obligations of marriage; but, the marriage celebration should be held at the earliest opportunity.  Only marriage between believers, by one holding proper divine authority, is for time and eternity.

Temporal marriages are broken by civil law through divorce.   . . . .

A divorce is the formal declaration of ending the civil contract.  There should be only limited circumstances under which a civil divorce is acceptable: primarily adultery and when life is threatened.  Divorce has become a plague on the family and society; and has brought improper sex into the majority of families in America .

When Jesus restored the Melchisedec Priesthood, He fulfilled the added temporal law, and man was again bound by the original spiritual law (for time and eternity).  The laws governing these marriages are stricter. . . .

{{THERE”s MORE . . . and yes, I’m going to inflict it on the viewers right now…} }

The law of God both allows and provides for polygamyMonogamy is an invention of man.  The Patriarchs and Prophets of old had multiple wives; and were favored servants of God.  Abraham had three wives and Jacob four.  Yet, God made the sons of these marriages Patriarchs.  The law of Moses provides for polygamy. In the conquest of Midian there were sixteen thousand females added for Israel to take to wife.  Without polygamy, it would not have been possible to provide for them. Polygamy is provided for in the Old Testament; and is not forbidden in the New Testament.

I suppose is we are able to retrograde culture back to the days where it’s only possible for men to make a living, and not possible for single mothers to structure their lives to adjust HOW the basic needs are met outside of that rigid, compartmentalized view of “work” “education” “parenting” designed according to the factory/assembly line ~ farming families for maximum productivity model // we may — and we are headed this way — make it physically unsafe and socially impossible for single mothers to exist, that is to say, financially.

As a single mother, I WAS existing and solvent financially — when I had control of my own basic infrastructure, and to do this even with weekly visitation with the (abusive) father of our kids.  It was only when I was forced — by the family court system — into the mainstream model, and done so in a manipulative and not even legal manner — that the household economics began to fall.  This was of course in association with (simultaneous) dropping child support income, which I learned — years later — was actually part of a federally funded, fatherhood/marriage promoting policy, made available by welfare reform, and initially tested in Bible Belt and Mormon states, with help from people in Government who were themselves religious (Gov. Keating/Catholic; and Jerry Regier/Conservative Evangelical & Campus Crusade for Christ, etc. ) sponsored and enabled by other religious organizations and individuals in the wings..

Notice, if Israel hadn’t wiped out the Midianites and taken their women, the problem of how to support all the widowed // war brides women (which polygamy solved) might not have existed, no??  In short, this RECENT piece by a Mormon elder (it’s on the internet, right?  Quoting pieces from the 1800s as well) is citing Moses’ law justifying polygamy as it previously justified taking other men’s women as spoils of war.  So really the problem becomes how to combine ongoing WAR (slaughtering men) with spreading the winning side’s seed around, to better dominate the landscape… Perhaps it might be better to solve the problem of war. . . . and some of the family problems might fall a little better into line…

God actually required polygamy in some instances.  At the death of a brother, the other was required to marry his brother’s wife; and raise seed for his brother.  “8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.” (Gen. 38)  “5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. 6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel .” (Deut. 25)

Jesus is quoted as being challenged on this by a group of people who didn’t believe in the resurrection, and put forth a joke on the situation:  Supposing this happened (seven times), whose wife would she be in the resurrection? (Seriously — that would cause some confusion, eh?. . . . )  This appears to be quite an issue, it’s in the three gospels (all but John).  In this matter, standard Christianity differs from Mormons — but when it comes to, women are getting out of line, and welfare should be used to promote marriage, somehow, the diverse religions (and, the nonreligious as well) are united in opinion:  We have to keep a lid on the independent single mothers and rein them in, marry them off, etc.

Matthew 22

23The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, 24Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 25Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: 26Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. 27And last of all the woman died also. 28Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. 31But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

In Mark 12, Jesus (allegedly) answered, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels in heaven. . . . .

Mark 12: 22And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.23In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. 24And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 25For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. 26And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

The third round, in Luke, Jesus affirmed the resurrection but said, as to marriage, your heads are in the wrong place, while not specifically denying that marriage on earth lasts into the resurrection, as the Mormons do…

Luke 2033Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.

34And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. 37Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob38For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. 39Then certain of the scribes answering said, Master, thou hast well said. 40And after that they durst not ask him any question at all.

I’m quoting a site here below (The Role of Women in Mormonism, 1995, deep-yellow background section); but this is a portion of the webpage stating the belief in Jesus’ own polygamy:

 The Mormon belief is that polygamy is holy and was practiced commonly in ancient times until people began spreading false religions. Adam, in his previous, spiritual existence, had many wives, of whom Eve was just one (Wallace 291). Jesus was also a polygamist “who was married whereby He could see His seed before He was crucified” (Hoekema 56), and his wives were Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene. Mormon Doctrine states that the president of the church had to suspend the practice of polygamy in 1890 because of the conditions at the time, but “obviously the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming…” (578).

I’m pointing out just how ridiculous this can get — and then let’s ask, why when it comes to this ONE topic of unmarried women (esp. mothers//divorcee or never-wed), the same religions

  • who believe in utter contradiction to each other in matters of reincarnation (we all previously existed as spirits) — which is better aligned with “new age” (actually, ancient) non-Christian beliefs, and
  • disagree in no less central figure to their groups than Jesus Christ — who the fundies say never married, never sinned, never committed adultery, but the Mormons say had three women, legally– and who (while I’m here) per the recently late Sun Myung Moon (head of the Unification church d. Sept. 2012) messed up, because he did NOT marry and procreate — making himself (Sun Myung Moon, that is) the third, and better Messiah –

ALL three of these groups have so agreed and had major influence on the existence of a responsible fatherhood/healthy marriage movement from the start.  Is marriage itself a central feature of their ability to relegate women to a lower caste whether on earth only, or on earth AND in the afterlife?

And why should political policies influenced by beliefs (let’s call them unverifiable theories) about what happens after death be used as the logical basis for policies claiming to reduce and prevent death, and make for a better life in THIS world?

Next question:  How come secularists and atheists who easily mock or would (privately) make fun of the religious — seem implicitly to agree when it comes to the management of females & who really “owns” the children of the nation?  Because these policies have been endorsed also by people without overt religious affiliation.  Perhaps it’s a private one relating to gender, though equally theological and speculative in origins?

This is the religious background of some of the promoters of these policies, and not that long ago.  This type of mentality is muddled, is based on excluding certain populations from decision-making based on the concept that God made them inferior for decision-making or leadership, and in practice requires a caste of slaves to lord it over (in this life) in the name of religion xyz — with the intent that this lordship might as well be the entire planet  . .

Anyone normal or still capable of logical/ rational thought (still left in the neighborhood), should be asking, all of these “prominent thinkers” and “leading thinkers” (and that’s indeed what they have called themselves, @ OMI and at NFI) — AND PAYING ATTENTION — can see that while these groups are miles apart on their faiths and in their description even of Jesus Christ — which many people still in this country, don’t believe ever existed, even?– they have found a new group identity, rallying cause and (as I clearly point out, BUSINESS VENTURE) — around marriage = good, unmarried (or without two parents in the home) = bad.  

Furthermore, when this practice is examined further, the policy ends up in taking away children from non-abusive homes if there’s not enough two-parent involvement and eliminating (often) the mother-contact, although at some levels in our society, the one thing women could show that they have said and  done well, when they have– is bear, nurture and raise children that are undeniably theirs!!  Or from within marriage (or a relationship) opt not to bear children when they foresee that doing so would be to bring a child into a bad situation.   I know that once my second pregnancy resulted in repeated assault & battery from “Dad,” there was not going to be pregnancy #3, although attempts were made to force this, i.e., to discourage the use of any birth control under my control.  I was very lucky that child was born healthy.

Many of these groups, although they meet separately together, share personnel in projects, and share business ventures together, and refer customers and talk about (free “press”) each other (incessantly) for validation  – can’t quite come out and say openly right IN the testimony before House Ways and Means seeking funding, or right IN the government meetings about to nab $10 million TANF set-aside money, that the collective shared reality is simply a collective religious shared concepts on who WOMEN are, and what should be done to better control their romantic, economic, social and particularly relational (incl. with their kids, other men) lives.

Look at this segment regarding “sealing” and the LDS concern that there not be “polyandry” (more than one husband) in heaven, or during immortality.  The heavens would be chaotic should this happen, right?

Notice the sentence, about “the deceased are free to refuse any temple ordinance, such as sealing.”

Wikipedia on “Mormonism/Sealing.

The LDS Church recognizes other monogamous, heterosexual marriages, both civil and religious, although they believe that such marriages will not continue after death because “Eternal Marriages” must be performed by Priesthood authority. However, “Eternal Marriages” are also performed vicariously for the deceased so that once all the prior temple ordinances are completed for a deceased individual, couples who were not sealed during their life may accept the proxy sealing to each other and their children.

Couples who have children born to them before the couple is sealed, may have their children sealed to them after the couple is sealed. Couples who have children after being sealed do not have to have their children sealed to them in a separate ceremony. Children born to sealed parents are “born in the covenant” and are automatically sealed to their parents. Adopted children may be sealed to their adoptive parents once the adoption has been legally finalized. . . .{{then, two paras. on what it takes to be UNsealed…like permission from the President of the Church..}}

It has been argued that the LDS Church’s policy on sealings and cancellations reflect its doctrine of plural marriage. Although the doctrine of plural marriage is currently prohibited from being practiced in the Church, a man can be sealed to multiple women. A widower may be sealed while he is alive to his subsequent wives. Additionally, men who are dead may be sealed by proxy to all of the women to whom they were legally married while alive. Recent changes in church policy also allow women to be sealed to multiple men, but only after both she and her husband(s) are dead.[2]

One wonders how there’s time left for concern about the present, with all this concern about after death…

Church doctrine is not entirely specific on the status of men or women who are sealed by proxy to multiple spouses. There are at least two possibilities:

  1. Regardless of how many people a man or woman is sealed to by proxy, they will only remain with one of them in the afterlife, and that the remaining spouses, who might still merit the full benefits of exaltation that come from being sealed, would then be given to another person in order to ensure each has an eternal marriage.
  2. These sealings create effective plural marriages that will continue after death. There are no Church teachings clarifying whether polyandrous relationships can exist in the afterlife, so some church members doubt whether this possibility would apply to women who are sealed by proxy to multiple spouses. The possibility for women to be sealed to multiple men is a recent policy change enacted in 1998. Church leaders have neither explained this change, nor its doctrinal implications. It should be noted, however, that proxy sealings, like proxy baptisms, are merely offered to the person in the afterlife, indicating that the purpose is to allow the woman to choose the right man to be sealed to, as LDS doctrine forbids polyandry.

The union of a sealed couple is regarded as valid only if both individuals have kept their religious commitments and followed LDS teachings.

Apparently, as solemn as “sealing is” — its something like the hot wax that used to seal a letter. It can be broken or opened.  This is in contrast to another “sealing” in the Bible, referenced in Ephesians 1, the faithful were “sealed” by the holy spirit until the day of redemption, which is anticipated in the future which glory the apostle Paul then goes on to pray they will understand in rhapsodic terms:

Ephesians 1 

10That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

There’s no mention of male & female, husband and wife, or family relationships in that description.  There is exhortation later, but all exhortation to walk in unity, humility, etc.  basically is in light of the anticipated return of Christ, and often with commentary about how the spiritual unity pre-empts other profiling:

Philippians 4 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things arejust, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. 9Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.

even reference to “neither male nor female.”

Galatians 3:23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus29And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Needless to say, this is not a favorite verse among many churches . . . . .the teaching (and book) is a lecture on legalism and hypocrisy . . . . . . The emphasis in this theology is on awaiting the event of the return of Christ, gathering together, resurrection of the dead (i.e., they’re not already up there having more spirit children, refusing or accepting being sealed by proxy, being polygamous or polyandrous, etc.  The dead are characterized (at least in the Bible) as asleep, even the prophet David was characterized as “dead and buried and his sepulchre with us today” in Acts 2.  So, later (after the conversion of Saul/Paul) in Romans, it basically says, one can’t be “unsealed” from the Love of God in Christ Jesus, certainly not by a priestly ordinance conducted in ceremonies or a temple on earth:

28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to beconformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

31What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? 32He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? 33Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.34Who is he that condemneth? It isChrist that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. 35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

Just a note, the person alleged to have written this (i.e., Paul, or Saul, who died probably ca. 70A.D., or “C.E.” if you will)  also was familiar with both causing that tribulation, distress, persecution, peril & sword himself, and later endured a lot of the same  Apparently what goes around comes around in THIS life to a degree.

.  . I think most sources also agree that this text — the texts now characterized as “the Bible,” not including some famous inserts — essentially came before Christianity became official, legal, and endorsed by Constantine, before the canonization of the Bible, and etc.

When people are being tortured, etc. for their faith (a longstanding practice as we know from history) no doubt it helps to believe in the resurrection and eventual reward for this courage and restraint, etc.  But at least the theology is not that complex — only one resurrection from the dead to eternal life (new body, etc.) so far, i.e., Jesus Christ… the rest are waiting . . . .therefore, be strong, endure, and moreover, be ethical in your personal behavior…. because a future (with justice, etc.) is coming…

36As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

37Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. 38For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord

The “seal” of God’s love and calling (Eph.1, above) is characterized as “the holy spirit of promise”

Contrast that with the complex, and unclear, Mormon doctrine (SEALINGS, continued….):

Just as deceased individuals may refuse any temple ordinance (such as a sealing) done by proxy on their behalf, couples, parents and children who were sealed to each other during their own life may exercise their agency to refuse to accept a sealing of which they were a part. No one will be sealed to any one with whom they do not want to be sealed.

Only worthy members of the LDS Church, who hold current valid temple recommends, can attend and witness sealings. Non-member family and friends generally wait in the temple waiting room during the sealing ceremony.

Since the LDS Church rejects same-sex marriages, these unions are not performed in temples nor are they recognized by the LDS Church.

OK, JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED IT ZIPPING BY:  There IS freedom of Choice in Mormonism:  “Just as DECEASED INDIVIDUALS MAY REFUSE ANY TEMPLE ORDINANCE”. . . . .
By what “medium” (pun intended) do they communication refusal of sealing by proxy?  Is there a record — no, better yet, a list — of deceased individuals who chose to refuse proxy sealing in exercise of their free will behind the grave, and who can see that database.  Is it so large, it’d be a public embarrassment? Or is the method of their communication their assent — or dissent —  so strange and outlandish that this prompts the putting out of observers during the ceremony, above?  I mean –
I mean, if this is a current beliefset of an existing leading Mormon (like, say, Romney) — or if he’s actually IN his right mind, but the people under his jurisdiction are not — then why doesn’t he enlighten them.  I’d just like to know, because that’s a major responsibility (and budget), to be President of the United States, and if he is unclear in his mindset between when he is hearing from a constituent or someone beyond the grave — suppose he participates in a sealing by proxy and doesn’t come down from that exalted state fully before entering a Congressional hearing, or writing an executive Order — I mean, SERIOUSLY, now  . . . . . .    I can understand people wanting to believe in life beyond the grave (hey, it’s no crime to hope, eh?) — but, hey, C’mon now !!!!  Is there also more land for sale under the Brooklyn Bridge?  I feel it’s my right to ask — because (far, far above) you can see there’s an ermine-robed man (now himself also beyond the grave, as of Sept. 2012 in fact) standing in, I believe it’s the Senate Dirksen building, and the U.S. does not grant titles of nobility, right?  No Lords no “Sirs” no Dukes, No Earls.  But we have a mock coronation ceremony of yet another religious leader (not a U.S. Citizen, I believe, right?) who claimed to hear from U.S. Presidents from beyond the grave — they were endorsing him, of course…..
Back to our doctrinal explanations of Mormonism here….. I’m a novice in this field, and this is how it looks to me, sorry about the long sentence…..
Regarding sealed/not sealed, regarding fully exalted into heaven through attachment to a male (Mormon), regarding salvation and redemption through being married (Moonie), or simply being married because it just ain’t right to have free-standing, independent women around, given what Eve allegedly did, and what the Bible allegedly says (much of Protestant evangelical America, and the world for that matter)….they should shut up in church, shouldn’t teach men, single mothers should let their kids be adopted by married couples (yes, that’s been promoted in our century) , and fathers shouldn’t be really required to financially support their children unless moderated and with arrears reduced by some (faith-based) fatherhood program paid for by all, and administered by cronies of whoever is currently in control of federal (or state-level) HHS…

We have to seriously ask why TODAY — 1990 — there are STILL so many denominations which just can’t handle a woman speaking to a man in a religious setting, or in any sense straying out from the authority placed on her religiously.  Churches are splitting on it.

How many more centuries — or decades — do they need on the issue?  And until this is settled, how many more million$ or billion$ of aid should such groups get their hands on?

Here’s another example, we’re talking protestant Presbyterians. . . . . . .  they just can’t handle it !!!

LOOK AT THE LINK FOR A SERIOUS THINK:

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Two issues relating to the role of women in the church came before the Assembly in the form of appeals. The Assembly determined not to allow women to lead a Bible study when men are present and when that study is under the auspices of the session (equivalent to our consistory). The Assembly determined that when a session appoints a person to teach, the person bears authority from the session. Appointment of a woman in this official capacity would violate I Timothy 2:11.

In the second appeal, the Assembly judged that a woman should not speak in worship services. Specifically, women should not “give testimonies.” This decision the Assembly based on I Corinthians 14:3-35 where Scripture teaches that women should not speak in the churches, as the law teaches.***

We hope and pray that the OPC will continue to hold fast the truth of Scripture on this point.

***No it doesn’t!

OR YET ANOTHER, SHOWING HOW “FAR” WE’VE COME SINCE THE 1200s, when this group the Waldensians were actually allowing men and women to teach, out of perception of how important that preaching was. . . . . Men women AND children (this includes pregnant women and infants) died for their testimony — now in America, women can’t give any testimony in a presbyterian church, which most likely is some form of 501(c)3  here, getting tax exemption for its efforts in shutting us up.

The Christian Reformed Church In North America

The CRC Synod of 1990 will long be remembered for its decision to open the offices of elder and minister to women. By a narrow margin (99-84) the synod voted to “permit churches to use their discretion in utilizing the gifts of women members in all the offices of the church.” This decision came after nearly eight hours of debate centering on the “headship principle.” This principle states that men are to be “heads” over women in marriage. Whether and how the principle applies to the roles of men and women in the church has been a subject of debate for the past twenty years in the CRC. Throughout the years, synods have appointed six committees to study the issues related to women serving in church office.

In 1984 the CRC opened the office of deacon to women.

This year’s decision opens all church offices to women.

The most recent study committee was appointed in 1987 and reported to this year’s synod. The synod, by adopting the above decision, judged that the committee’s report did not provide clear biblical and confessional grounds for extending the “headship principle” from marriage to the church. Because this decision involves a change in the CRC Church Order (the word “male” must be deleted in reference to officebearers), the synod of 1992 must ratify the changes made to the Church Order before women may officially be ordained as elders or ministers. The synod asked, therefore, that churches refrain from ordaining women as elders or pastors until the ratification takes place in 1992.

It grieves us to see our “mother church” take this step. These decisions are in clear violation of the teaching of Holy Scripture (I Cor. 11:2-16I Cor. 14:34, 35I Tim. 2:9-15) which forbids women to serve in church office. These decisions too indicate in which direction the CRC is going. What now will brothers and sisters in the CRC do who are grieved by these decisions? Perhaps it was these decisions which prompted two of the fraternal delegates to admonish the CRC. The Rev. Glenn Jerell, representing the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, informed the synod that his denomination has withdrawn from the Reformed Ecumenical Council because of the continuing membership in that council of churches “moving in a liberal direction.” Jerell added that he fears the CRC is walking only “a few blocks behind” the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (GKN) and pleaded with the synod “to dispel that as a wrong perception.” The Rev. Philip Pockras of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America expressed concern that the CRC is on “the downgrade” and admonished the delegates to stay true to the Word. 

From a site (while I was exploring the Waldensians, below) called “womenpriests.org” and an 1980 convention (ecumenical) on this one, from the “Orthodox” section. keeping in mind, the date was 1980:
http://www.womenpriests.org/related/parvey_1.asp

Among the Orthodox present at the consultation was a representative of the Coptic Orthodox Church in which, according to this participant, from the beginning the ministry ((not ordination)) of women has been undisputed. “Even before Pentecost, women participated in the life of the Church and in its service. The four daughters of Philip were prophets. There were also deaconesses and widows. The Church is continuous with this today. Women preach in Sunday schools. We have deaconesses who aid the priest in the baptism of women and in other duties.” He continued: “In the third and fourth centuries, some heretical groups dared to ordain women, and the Church condemned them. Perhaps the reason the issue is not raised today is that we live in an Arab society and in Islam women have fewer rights.”

and, (this being a charity formed in 1983 with the goal of enabling women to become ordained priests in the Catholic church):

The Catholic Church still does not recognise the full equality in Christ that should be enjoyed by women (Galatians 3,28).

A Catholic woman is, in fact, disqualified from dealing with the sacred. She may be a consumer of it but has only access to it through men. She is not deemed capable of being the life-giving image of Christ at the eucharist. It is our duty as women to draw attention to this anomaly which is surely against Jesus’ own intentions. 



 . . . . there’s the matter of purgatory, indulgences, i.e., there’s the matter of Catholicism. . . . And if you think this is unrelated to public monies, go back to TAGGS.hhs.gov and do a few searches using the word….

*(*(*(PURGATORY, CANONIZATION OF SAINTS, ETC.

A brief review of the matter of Purgatory brought back to my attention an amazing religious group, started in the late 1100s — which essentially helped jump-start the Reformation.    They were called “the Poor of Lyons” and/or the “Waldensians.”  An article from Catholic Encyclopedia reminded me, and in looking up just a little documentation (as I do), was drawn into a full-day review of this group’s history.

Before anyone had translated the Bible into “English,” this group was translating it into “Provencal,” which (predates French?).  Moreover, they emphasized preaching over ecclesiastical privilege (you can imagine how well that was received) — AND they had men AND women preaching and teaching.

In the 1200s.   . . . . .   In response, after the Catholics had finished off the “Albigenses” (below), they turned to literally exterminating this one group, after it was excommunicated, and still refused to reform its adherence on scripture and “lay preaching.”

In effect, the group was so persecuted it had a diaspora, covering large segments of Europe, survived cruel and significant massacres, and betrayals.  Villages were decimated; there were bloodbaths.

They influenced John Huss, Calvin, and helped pay for an early translation of the Bible into French by Calvin’s cousin.  The persecution was fierce and spanned several hundred years.  Maybe it was timing, but it appears that the Inquisition (you’ve heard of that, right?) was formed and organized partly in response to this one group, so threatening was their individual empowerment of men (and women) to society and the status quo.  A French king sent an army against them.  It’s an absolutely amazing story.

However, I’m removing most of it to a separate post, which will probably be called something foolish, such as “Where’s Waldo” (as their name was the Waldensians).

By seeing how this group was treated (not to mention also Jews and “Saracens”), we can see the TRUE NATURE of virtually any religion once it obtains “temporal” power, and what it will do when indoctrination fails.  I also have to again ask — if women were preaching in the 1200s, why can they not so many places in the 2000s — and what does that say about our “evolved” society?

The only answer — really — is to prevent too much centralization of power.  In order to do that, I hate to say this — but the help of women is needed.  And these groups which are disenfranchising us based on religious beliefs need to be put on an equal level with any other business — and lose their tax perks AND federal grants.  I don’t care how powerful the Bush Family has been — they’re not the good guys no matter which way you look at things.  Moreover, no US President in recent decades has been that much of a “good guy.”  We need to stop being so codependent and tolerant of the massive accumulation of wealth, by people who know exactly how to hide it also (such as the Unification church, and such as certain religious groups, who do not have to expose their tax returns, are).

I know noncustodial mothers in some of these religious groups (except Unification church), and hope they will begin to understand why it’s best to make sure ALL this funding of marriage-promotion within the US federal government (especially through welfare, formally called “TANF” ) is ceased.  Is it really too late to try?

I have left the beginning of the discussion of the Waldensians, but gutted most of it to elsewhere, and will post a link here or as a comment to this post.

REGARDING PURGATORY, ETC….

(from “Catholic Encylopedia” listed at “Newadvent.org”)

Purgatory (Lat., “purgare”, to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is aplace or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.

The faith of the Church concerning purgatory is clearly expressed in the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined:

“Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of thefaithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synodenjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful” (Denzinger, “Enchiridon”, 983).


Now, I AM talking about issues regarding THIS life, specifically which are affecting people I know, have affected me, and have deeply affected my children, and I believe, compromised and impoverished their futures (needlessly) under promises of policies doing the exact opposite.  My position is, those policies besides coming from these types of religious backgrounds, even when they are NOT from those backgrounds overtly, are supported too tolerantly by those unwilling to take on religion in government as it comes to handling of the genders; it is Still “too hot to handle.”   The feminists have compromised it by going for “supervised visitation” and “training judges” and in general, there has been no purgatory on THIS earth for the healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood agenda, as I’d sure like to see!

from the same Catholic Encyclopedia, one can see there was much arguing on this point, i.e., how is guilt absolved (moreso than the Mormon, who’s married to whom and how can women receive full exaltation in the afterlife by being sealed to a man, without confusing the spirit world unduly….).  This line of reasoning is more relating to guilt and freedom from guilt, forgiveness of sin, etc.  But you can see how much arguing and debating about the matter of “prayers for the dead” and do they work, or not work.  Since at least the fourth century onwards, between Calvinists and Catholics, re: Luther, almost everyone.  I can see how — given how much debate and dissension on this, any cause (in our time) (where these are hardly resolved in practice, whether or not in profession) a unifying cause such as the one of marriage and restoring men to the “heads of their household” might have wide religious appeal!

Just another taste of the matter in this by now huge post:

Epiphanius(Haer., lxxv, P.G., XLII, col. 513) complains that Aërius(fourth century) taught that prayers for the dead were of no avail.

In the Middle Ages, the doctrine of purgatory was rejected by the AlbigensesWaldenses, and HussitesSt. Bernard (Serm. lxvi in Cantic., P.L. CLXXXIII, col. 1098) states that the so-called “Apostolici” denied purgatory and the utility ofprayers for the departed.

Albigenses, I gather, were a sect from the south of France from the 12th and 13th centuries; dualistic:  spirit is good, but flesh and matter was created by the evil principle; life on earth (in all its forms) is hell; there is no resurrection because to be freed from the evil material body is good, and a number of other (what read like very strange) beliefs…    “Alba” meaning white (pure, etc.) Separate sacraments to cleanse the soul after death….  Hence death is good, therefore suicide is good, and marriage/propagation in particular, bad.   Abstinence is good.  etc.  Married sex is bad, etc.  Of course reading a Catholic definition of what is a sect to Catholicism is hardly the best source of its beliefs!

The Waldenses are interesting, in that apparently a wealthy merchant from Lyons (France) hired some priests to translate the gospels, and decided to actually carry out the command of Christ, sell what he had and give to the poor.”  This he did, creating quite a stir, completing distribution of his stuff (and daughters, to a convent) in 1176 and attracting a following, particularly over the teaching that people were to obey God, not man.  It took only 8 years for him to be excommunicated:

The history of Waldes’s conversion may perhaps be reconstructed in the following manner. Desirous of acquiring a knowledge of biblical teaching, Waldes requested two priests to translate for him the four Gospels. In a similar manner he subsequently obtained translations of other Biblical books and of some writings of the Fathers.

Through the reading of these works he was attracted to the practice of Christian perfection; his fervour increased when one day he heard from an itinerant singer (ioculator) the history of St. Alexius. He now consulted a master of theology on the best and surest way to salvation.  In answer the words of Christ to the rich young man were cited to him: “If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor.” (Matthew 19:21). Waldes immediately put into effect the counsel of the Divine Master. He made over part of his wealth to his wife, part to those from whom he had acquired it, left some to the nuns of Fontevrault in whose monastery he placed his two little daughters, and distributed the greatest part to the poor. On the feast of the Assumption {{of the Virgin Mary into heaven….}}, 1176, he disposed of the last of his earthly possessions and shortly after took the vow of poverty. His example created a great stir inLyons and soon found imitators, particularly among the lower and uneducated classes. A special confraternity was established for the practice of apostolic poverty.

It gets “worse” from a certain point of view, particularly as they hadn’t been properly educated into the matters of purgatory, and were in the habit of evangelism, i.e., preaching:

 Its members almost immediately began to preach in the streets and public places and gained more adherents. Their preaching, however, was not unmixed with doctrinal error {{sic}} and was consequently prohibited, according to Stephen of Bourbon, by the Archbishop of Lyons, according to Walter Map, present at the assembly, by the Third General Lateran Council (1179). The Waldenses, instead of heeding the prohibition, continued to preach on the plea that obedience is due rather to God than to man {{a phrase already in the Bible re: the early church.}}. Pope Lucius III consequently included them among the heretics against whom he issued a Bull of excommunication at Verona in 1184.

As it turns out with people engrossed with the scriptures, it apparently took more than pronouncing excommunication to exterminate the movement . . . . this group was literally among the precursors of the Reformation that ended up challenging the Roman church…. and helping change history.  They even predated Wycliffe, who translated the Bible into English from the Vulgate…. later inspiring Huss (who was burned at the stake for HIS beliefs and preaching), who inspired Martin Luther, etc. . . This is PART of the backdrop of PART of the USA, and our so-called religious tolerance (along with disenfranchisement of women, ongoing, and practices of slavery, genocide of the indigenous populations, etc.).  Right now, “the religious” is very, very interested in re-disenfranchising women, even to the point of overcoming some innate racism in the long-term strategy in my opinion — as part of this evangelism about the future life with a view to accumulating wealth in the present. …  I hope to live as long as possible, but am beginning to see, this matter is likely to outlast my lifetime . . . .

Third Lateran Council (from papalencyclicals.net)  Different background-color indicates my- ah, diversion, looking into this matter…

The particular object of this council was to put an end to the schism within the church and the quarrel between the emperor and the papacy. It was summoned by Pope Alexander in 1178… The council was held at Rome in March 1179. About three hundred fathers assembled from the provinces of Europe and some from the Latin east, and a single legate from the Greek church.. . .The bishops first heard Rufinus, bishop of Assisi, who in a highly polished address praised the Roman pontiff and the Roman church, “that church to which alone belongs the decision and power to summon a general council, to lay down new canons and cancel the old;

(This was to include excommunication and anathemas, regarding Jews, and sects such as the Cathars (Albigenses?) etc.)

Take a look at canons 26 & 27.  Again, my thesis is — ought we to have religion in government, let alone in control of it?  I might not be able to even say this in public had not some previous generations in other countries given their lives for it….this is WHAT religion does….

26. Jews and Saracens are not to be allowed to have christian servants in their houses, either under pretence of nourishing their children or for service or any other reason. Let those be excommunicated who presume to live with them.
We declare that the evidence of Christians is to be accepted against Jews in every case, since Jews employ their own witnesses against Christians, and that those who prefer Jews to Christians in this matter are to lie under anathema, since Jews ought to be subject to Christians and to be supported by them on grounds of humanity alone.
If any by the inspiration of God  {{SEE CANON 27…}}  are converted to the christian faith, they are in no way to be excluded from their possessions, since the condition of converts ought to be better than before their conversion. If this is not done, we enjoin on the princes and rulers of these places, under penalty of excommunication, the duty to restore fully to these converts the share of their inheritance and goods.
{{WHICH OBVIOUSLY MUST HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATE FOR THE CRIME OF BEING JEWISH…}}

27. As St. Leo says, though the discipline of the church should be satisfied with the judgment of the priest and should not cause the shedding of blood, yet it is helped by the laws of catholic princes so that people often seek a salutary remedy when they fear that a corporal punishment will overtake them.

For this reason, since in Gascony and the regions of Albi and Toulouse and in other places the loathsome heresy of those whom some call the Cathars, others the Patarenes, others the Publicani, and others by different names, has grown so strong that they no longer practise their wickedness in secret, as others do, but proclaim their error publicly and draw the simple and weak to join them,

{{AS EVER, THE PRINCES SHOULD BE DRIVING THE FAITHFUL BACK INTO THE WAY OF THE PRIESTLY}}

we declare that they and their defenders and those who receive them are under anathema, and we forbid under pain of anathema that anyone should keep or support them in their houses or lands or should trade with them. If anyone dies in this sin, then neither under cover of our privileges granted to anyone, nor for any other reason, is mass to be offered for them or are they to receive burial among Christians.

More at wikipedia explains the political context of establishing which Pope reigned;  and notes that this council was the first to ban sodomy (and reprove the non-chaste priests who kept concubines, etc.)

WIKIPEDIA ON WALDENSIANS:

Wikipedia re: “Waldensians” mentions their persecution and influence getting the Bible translated….. as well as how they were forced underground, by ca. 1230.     Apparently they were enticed out of secrecy (joining other protestants), but persecution still followed for more than a century.

Regarding translation of the Bible:

Waldo {keeping in mind when he lived…}} had arranged for a translation of the New Testament into the Provençal language and he and his followers preached from that translation. Waldo’s followers developed a system whereby they would go from town to town and meet secretly with small groups of Waldensians. There they would confess sins and hold service. A traveling Waldensian preacher was known as a barba. The group would shelter and house the barba and help make arrangements to move on to the next town in secret.[17]

{{barba meant ‘uncle,’ as they did not call their preachers “father”}}

Because of this ongoing practice, they were formally declared schismatics by Pope Lucius III in 1184 at the Synod of Verona, and heretics during the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The Council stated that the group’s principal error was “contempt for ecclesiastical power“, but were also accused of teaching “innumerable errors”. Waldo and his followers were excommunicated and forced from Lyon.[18][19]

In 1211, more than 80 Waldensians were burned as heretics at Strasbourg, {{eastern France}} beginning several centuries ofpersecution that nearly destroyed the movement.[20]

{{in 1349 over a hundred years later, a pogrom in the same city, immediately after the plague}}

They at some point were joining with other protestant groups:

The French Bible translated by Pierre Robert Olivétan with the help of Calvin and published at Neuchâtel in 1535 was based in part on a New Testament in the Waldensian vernacular. The cost of its publication was defrayed by the churches in Waldensia who collected the sum of 1500 gold crowns for this purpose.[23]

(Another source, below says it was 500 crowns) (this site has one page in English but is otherwise in Italian — but appears to be re: the Valdesi; I don’t know whether of this group, or of this area.

They were then enticed out of secrecy, in part by another reformer, Wm. (Guillaume) Farel.  They’d first sent messengers out, then received messengers back and at a “Synod of Chanforan” were persuaded to adopt the Reformation model, and begin worshipping openly. In 1532….

In 1532, at the synod of Chanforan, in the Waldensian valleys, the reformer Guillaume Farel was present. His influence was decisive. He made the synod take a definite stand in favour of the ideas of the Reformation.

The itinerant ministry of the preachers was stopped. Most preachers became pastors and the places they visited became centres for reformed churches.

At the same time, the synod of Chanforan decided to spend 500 gold crowns on a translation of the Bible into French, which was entrusted to Olivétan.

@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
This type of persecution is THE definition of religion (after indoctrination), and as such, it behooves all of us (in our centuries) to prevent too much accumulation of this type of power, particularly blended with religious style preaching.
More on the Waldensians — I was looking for a reference (heard of it) where, under persecution, they would literally split up the pages of a Bible, for members of a village or community to memorize.   Their persecution lasted a few centuries and was genocidal in intent.

. . .

http://www.xenos.org/essays/waldframe.htm

The most important point in this is that there was no ideological or theological breakthrough that occasioned the Waldensian movement.46 Their existence was not the result of any change in theology, but rather a change in theopraxy–the Poor of Lyons translated the Bible, and preached it in their own words.47 Thus, the Waldensians are an early test case in the area of lay ministry. Their main sin was to take too literally the Biblical command to, “. . .teach them to observe all that I commanded you.

Not only did they refuse to deny the right of the laity to preach and teach, they also allowed and encouraged women to teach. This had tremendous shock effect on their culture, at the same time that it probably tapped an hitherto unknown source of power.48 It would be easy to underestimate the impact that this feature had on the Europe of 1170

I trust this “encouraging women to teach” will distinguish the practice from several — not all, but more than you may realize — evangelical protestant or megachurch groups prominent today, focused on spreading marriage and abstinence as well, with help from certain grants in addition to tithes.

This is a more scholarly book translated from the French ca. 1999, about this sect, covering the years  “THE WALDENSIAN DISSENT PERSECUTION AND SURVIVAL c.1150- c.1570″ by Gabriel Audisio.

First, his short summary points out that they became a disapora:

Waldensianism was a religious movement with certain quite precise characteristics. These were almost entirely lost when it was decided to join the Reformation in the sixteenth century. From that point on, Waldensian and Protestant became completely separate, if not absolutely contradictory, terms. For this reason, I consider that Waldensianism came to an end at the time of the Reformation and I bring the history of the Waldensians to a close in this period, adding an epilogue at the end to account for the existence of a region, a descent and a Church which still bear the name `Waldensian’ to this day. Speaking of the Poor of Lyons, rather than the Waldensians will probably make the situation clearer and avoid any misunderstandings.

As for the geographical scope of the work, it covers Europe with one or two exceptions. England, the Iberian Peninsula and Scandinavia were the only lands in Europe where the dissenters were not to be found. A basic characteristic of the community was its life as a diaspora, subjected as it was to incessant persecution and forced to  ̄flee in various directions to ensure its survival

. . .

From southern Italy to the Baltic Sea, from the Atlantic Ocean to Poland, the Poor of Lyons lived paradoxically as a tiny minority with followers in a great many nations. There can be no doubting that the situation created serious problems concerning the unity of the movement and made it necessary for them to organise themselves efficiently. . .No other medieval dissent managed to cover so vast and area or survive so long.


The Waldensian people left few direct testimonies. They were peasants, not scholars or men of influence who cultivated the written word. They were also dissenters living in hiding, doing their best to pass unnoticed; they therefore tried to leave as few traces as possible. Most documents about them were the work of those who fought them, writing treatises and essays or recording trials. As is the case for all clandestine minorities, a major drawback is that our source material is mostly indirect, requiring particularly careful analysis to see through its potentially biased nature. How to interpret such sources creates a real methodological problem

I said this to set up the following quote — which, while from a 14th century inquisitor, Bernard Gui, our author here says it was probably taken from a near contemporary of (the founder of this group), written probably 1250-1261. And it mentions — preachers of both sexes, among other disgraces of this group. (From page 10):

. . . He had the holy scriptures and other books of the bible translated for his own use into the vernacular, along with a collection of maxims of St Augustine, St Jerome, St Ambrose and St Gregory which were distributed bearing titles that he and his followers called sententiae. They read them frequently but barely understood them; they were self-infatuated, although they were of little education, and usurped the function of apostles and dared preach the gospel in the streets and in town squares. The above-mentioned Valdesius or Valdensis encouraged a number of accomplices of both sexes in this presumption, sending them out to preach as disciples.

What’s interesting is that the author (a guy, obviously) didn’t pick up on the gender issue, summarizing it instead:

“It can be seen that three basic elements are established from the outset: poverty, preaching and the holy scriptures.”

Again, he mentions women preaching:

Although they were ignorant and unlettered, these people, both men and women, went from village to village, going into people’s homes and preaching in public squares and even in churches, the men in particular leaving behind them a host of misunderstandings and mistakes. The archbishop of Lyons, Jean aux Belles-Mains, commanded that they abandon such a presuming mission, but they ̄outed his authority, maintaining, in order to disguise their delusions, that one should obey God rather than men.

AND yet again:

What is certain, however, is that a number of women who had also been converted by VaudeÁs and who became his disciples also began to speak in public. This originality was unacceptable to the Church powers.

FROM THE SAME BOOK:

LITERACY, THE POOR OF LYONS, AND CLERICAL MONOPOLY ON THE WRITTEN AND SPOKEN WORD
VaudeÁs’s real originality lies elsewhere. He was a layman and wished to remain so. He refused either to enter an existing religious order or to found a new one. He rejected the idea of a mould in which his own inspiration would lose its uniqueness. This attitude should be understood as an expression of the laity’s desire to play a different, more important role in a Church which had become too clerical. The vindication can be interpreted in the same way as that of the newly emerging middle classes demanding a better status in the medieval society of the time.

But the fact that laymen ± and women, a matter which tends to be overlooked ± should have taken up preaching threw into question the very foundations of the Church and society as they were defined then.

We should remember that only about 10 per cent of the population was literate and that, even in a city as big as Lyons, the proportion can hardly have been more than 20 per cent, although the lack of dependable statistical evidence makes it absolutely impossible to offer even approximate figures. Reading therefore constituted a form of real power in this oral civilisation where hearing and memory played an essential role.

In such a context, the clergy enjoyed unequalled prestige. Overall, the clergy represented by far the best educated class of society. In social, cultural and religious terms, their status was outstanding. In their hands were concentrated all the powers that gave access to both reading and writing. They were the of®cial bearers of the holy scriptures and represented the one and only means to have access to them. They alone could correctly interpret the Word of God. As a result, they also monopolised public speaking ± in other words, preaching. When one bears in mind, ®rstly, the importance of the spoken word in such an oral world; secondly, the role that a literate class could play; and lastly, the esteem the clerics enjoyed (in spite of traditional, good-natured anti- clericalism) within this society shaped by and dependent on the religious orders, only then can one assess the importance of VaudeÁs and his followers and the challenge they, perhaps unconsciously, represented.
The reaction of the Church can now be understood. Internal quarrels were set aside. The clerical class as a whole put up a common, united front before this attempt to break its monopoly over the spoken and written word. It is therefore hardly surprising that preaching became the core of the conflict.

Neither the Roman Church nor even medieval society itself could accept VaudeÁs’s `alleged mission’ without running the risk of undermining the very structures which made it function. The polemicists who were VaudeÁs’s contemporaries, and the inquisitors who came after, all referred to his `pretence’, `presumption’ and `usurpation’. They seized every opportunity to maintain that VaudeÁs’s mission could not be genuine for the very reason that he had not been sent by the Church hierarchy.

Furthermore, they did not hesitate to scoff at him and his companions who were deemed idiote et illiterati (ignorant and illiterate) by Stephen of Bourbon and Bernard Gui, for example. What was the truth of the matter?

We know that some genuine men of letters were to be found amongst VaudeÁs’s first companions. Bernard Prim, Guillaume of Arnaud and especially Durand of Huesca whom we evoked earlier, the author of Liber antiheresis, were perfectly capable of engaging in theological discus-sions, contradictory debates and verbal fencing matches; they had excelled in such skills during the struggle with the Cathars.

As for VaudeÁs himself, we know he did not understand Latin because he had a cleric translate the gospels. On these grounds alone he could be condemned as unlettered, since all literature was written in Latin, which was the language of the sciences, including religion.

VaudeÁs, however, certainly knew how to read which, for a merchant, was to be expected. Even if Lyons was behind the times in terms of the commercial techniques and banking systems of the Italian cities, there can be no doubting that the merchants of the RhoÃne valley knew how to read and sometimes write for negotiating purposes.
Whatever the case may be, the mission that VaudeÁs undertook, proclaiming the Word of God and gathering together for this purpose biblical texts translated into the vernacular, was to lead him and his companions to read in private and in public. Certainly, this veneration of the holy scriptures would not transform the Poor of Lyons into refined men of letters, sages or Byzantine theologians. But this was not their intention either. Not being or wishing to be clerics, the Poor of Lyons found themselves rejected by a class of educated men who reacted as a privileged caste anxious not to lose its power based on the divine monopoly of the oral and the written, the Word and the holy scripture



During the thirty or so years between the excommunication of Waldo and the first major genocidal crusade against them, the movement spread at an astonishing rate. There were cells of activity right across southern Europe by the year 1208 when the crusade against the Albigensians was proclaimed by Innocent III.

In this year there began a crusade against the Cathari 60 akin to the one that had been going on against the Muslims for some time.This was the first time the crusade concept had been used against dissidents who called themselves Christian. “For twenty long years Languedoc and Provence in France were subjected to a blood bath which not only wiped out the most advanced culture of the timebut introduced it into the Church, and from there throughout the West, the rule that any ideological deviation must be crushed by force.”61

It is important to remember that this period (1150-1300) were the years of the zenith of papal temporal power. Innocent III described himself as “set between God and man, lower than God but higher than man, who judges all and is judged by no one. . .”62 He declared that, “the priesthood was as superior to the kingship as the soul to the body,” and he informed the nobles of Tuscany that, “just as the moon derives its light from the sun . . .so too the royal power derives the splendor of its dignity from the pontifical authority.”63 As has been the case so often in history, greater political power for the institutional church has been bad news for Christian minorities.

(And others caught inbetween, i.e., bystanders….)

This was also the pattern that would characterize Roman Catholic reaction to the Waldensians for the next 450 years. The history of the Waldensians during this period is an incredible litany of genocidal disaster. This was the period of the inquisition in Europe, and it is through the well kept records of the inquisition that we follow the spread of the Waldensians’ movement throughout Europe. Tourn lists some of the major persecutions after the crusade of 1208. . . [[which this site then lists, and is gruesome..such as burning a village to the ground, selling some into slavery on ships, others to starvation in dungeons, and in one case including slaughtering 88 on the front steps of a parish [on June 11th, 1561,  ..]]

Then they hooked up with the Hussites who — after Huss was betrayed and burned at the stake, inspired more revolts, when the Waldensians heard, they hooked up with the Hussites (Huss died, but the movement did not!) and received instruction, which they then systematically spread among their ranks:

HUSS:

When Jon Huss revolted against the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, it was not another peasant revolt {{Peter Waldo was not a peasant…sic}} but a well reasoned attack aimed at the roots of papal authority and doctrine. Huss was a scholar lecturing at the University of Prague. He taught that the Bible was the sole authority for faith and practice, and salvation by faith. He was promised safe conduct to the Council of Constance to answer for his views, but was seized and burned at the stake anyway. At this point the population of sections of modern Austria and Chechoslovakia rose in open revolt.

Pause to point out another feature of religion in authority:  Betrayal in order to exterminate critics, a.k.a. lying.

One new twist in this revolt was that some fought when attacked by the inevitable papal army. In the same way that the Paulicians had earlier, they actually fought the Roman Catholic Church to a standstill in the 1400′s. The fortress that they later formed at Tabor gave one group of them the name Taborites.

When word of this revolution reached the Waldensians, they reacted with excitement. They promptly dispatched several “barbas” (“uncles”, the term used by Waldensians for their teachers)70 to go to Bohemia and learn what was happening. There followed a series of meetings between leaders of the two groups which led to great benefit for the Waldensians. They received from the Hussite movement training in theology which was to prove very helpful to future generations.

Interesting; the story didn’t end here; see below….

As a result, the barbas during this period were capable of reading theological works in Latin, of studying mathematics, and knowing enough botany and rudimentary medicine to permit them to deal with simple diseases. Their activity in ministerial tasks likewise became more organized, rigorous and systematic than before. A young Waldensian whose gifts and resolve marked him for service in the community would be apprenticed to an experienced barba for a period of several years. After becoming familiar with the various places to visit, learning languages and studying the Bible more deeply, the young barba would then visit the different clandestine scholae or underground schools.71

LUTHER, HUSS, WALDENSIANS:

Luther, who so strongly denounced the Hussites at first, discovered during the Liepzig Disputation that he agreed with Huss. Later he said “We were all Hussites without knowing it!”75 Eventually, he wrote a preface to the Taborite Confession of Faith, in which he referred to the Hussites as “Waldensians”.

Summary of the persecutions, overall:

It is questionable whether the Waldensians ever exceeded 100,000 functional members at any one time before the Reformation. Yet when one considers that they existed in some force for almost 350 years before the reformation began, it is evident that many generations, and therefore many times their total were affected.

No one knows, even roughly, the total number killed in the persecutions the Waldensians endured, but the lowest estimates must run into the several tens of thousands. It is unlikely that any group other than the Anabaptists and Jews can point to a comparable history of prolonged universal persecution. Their amazing survival makes them different, than the other schizmatic groups that began at the same time as well. The crime which precipitated such suffering was their desire to exercise their birthright in the Body of Christ according to the New Testament–the practice of their own gifts and ministries

This timeframe, while the site lists Waldo (who lived earlier) doesn’t show him because it starts in 1330.  However, if waldensians were contacting Hussites — you can see the influence;

Only one woman is mentioned in the list (which is from a “Christian Reformation Tour” LLC in Illinois), who was Martin Luther’s wife.  With his help, she and 10 others escaped a monastery where she’d been dropped off , age 6 (or, 3?), by a stepmother!!… …. ended up marrying Luther and (very hard worker) managing his household … bore six kids ….

Katharina Von Bora (1499 – 1552) was the beautiful and talented wife of Martin Luther. She was placed in a nunnery at age 6 after her mother’s death by her new stepmother. In 1522, along with other nuns who had read Luther’s gospel tracts and accepted the gospel of salvation, she escaped the convent. She then lived with artist Lucas Cranach and his family. On June 1525 she married Martin Luther and had 6 children. Her last words were “I will stick to Christ like a burr to a topcoat”.   “she rose at 4 a.m. to care for her many responsibilities. She took care of the vegetable garden, orchard, fishpond, and barnyard animals, even to the butchering of them herself. Often there were as many as 30 students, guests, or boarders staying in the monastery, all of whom came under Katie’s care. Luther was often ill, and Katie was able to minister to him in his illnesses because of her great medical skill.
    Back to the Catholic encyclopedia discussion

:

Much discussion has arisen over the position of the Greeks on the question of purgatory. It would seem that the great difference of opinion was not concerning theexistenceof purgatory but concerning thenatureof purgatorial fire; stillSt. Thomasprovestheexistenceof purgatory in his dissertation against theerrorsof theGreeks, and theCouncil of Florencealso thoughtnecessaryto affirm thebeliefof theChurchon the subject (Bellarmine, “De Purgatorio,” lib. I, cap. i). The modernOrthodox Churchdenies purgatory, but is rather inconsistent in its way of putting forth itsbelief.

At the beginning of theReformationthere was some hesitation especially onLuther’spart (Leipzig Disputation) as to whether thedoctrineshould be retained, but as the breach widened, the denial of purgatory by theReformersbecame universal, andCalvintermed theCatholicposition “exitiale commentum quod crucem Christi evacuat . . . quod fidem nostram labefacit et evertit” (Institutiones, lib. III, cap. v, 6). ModernProtestants, while they avoid the namepurgatory, frequently teach thedoctrineof “the middle state,” and Martensen (“Christian Dogmatics,” Edinburgh, 1890, p. 457) writes: “As nosoulleaves this presentexistencein a fully complete and prepared state, we must suppose that there is an intermediate state, a realm of progressive development, (?) in whichsoulsare prepared for thefinal judgment” (Farrar, “Mercy and Judgment,” London, 1881, cap. iii).

Given that they definitely don’t agree on who Jesus was, or other key matters, such as reincarnation, permanent spiritual marriages, or aspects of the resurrection?  In fact, as to the attitudes regarding women, all of these three (Mormon, Fundie Bible belt, or internet-age-megachurch evangelical protestant religious and for the most part, Catholic) have much more in common, really, with the descendants of “Ishmael” in re: polygamy and controlling women, than they do with concepts fundamental to the United States Constitution  . . . .

Whatever, we are dealing, in budgets and TANF set-asides NOT with resurrection matters, nor should we be as a nation!  But just FYI, yes, I have run across people — this day and time — who identify as “sabbath keepers” and wishing to return to the law.  They are men, and of them, this theme of polygamy comes up; one can see the appeal from a man’s point of view, and it’s harmonious with certain other cultures, in other countries..”  Continuing with a Mormon’s writings on the all-important (to them) matters about who has sex with whom, and how, and all the rules, regulations, and eternal consequences for messing this up –

As sex and marriage was commanded by God, a person that has proper sex remains a spiritual virgin; having never violated the body.

Spiritual Virginity — talk about mixed metaphors!!….. I mean, it’s a common concept; the scriptures are full from start to finish of the LORD calling Israel, Judah, Samaria, and later, Babylon — harlots, whores, etc. . .  .   It is symbolic talk.

(Is spiritual virginity anything like spiritual psychology?)

On the other hand, I can see some romantic upsides to the concept.  For example, the next time I am about to have sex with a man, perhaps a second husband,* perhaps not — I could try that line:  “No, seriously, take it on faith — trust me, I used to be a Mormon // I’m a SPIRITUAL virgin, good as new as far as you’re concerned.”  Or, I could ask, come to think of it — SO, are you a spiritual virgin?)

(*the first (and FYI, only) one doesn’t stand a chance, as he never acknowledged or apologized for serious, serial assault & battery as part of his function of husband.  I have some injuries from this.  Nor is there apparently any remorse for later financial and physical abandonment of OUR children after he got them away from me, a form of severe and very cruel punishment (note:  history of Mormons shows them doing this even among Brigham Young’s harem; wives — perhaps these guys learn from each others’ religions, or maybe it’s in the genes…….)

NEXT:  Here we go now, religion justifying how gender distinctions = affects privileges (authority in the marriage) but not to responsibilities.  Note the attitude:

Man is the head of the household and bears the greatest responsibility for obeying the law of God.  “3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Cor. 11)  This does not remove any responsibility from the woman.  Men and women are equals in the sight of the law. “Thou shalt not,” applies equally.  Greater responsibility for fidelity has been placed on the woman in some societies and at various times; but, the man is equally responsible.

  Eve was cursed because she did not consult with Adam before partaking of the forbidden fruit

And these religions have been cursing women as descendants of Eve ever since.  They hate, and fear women, particularly women without a restraining, resident male, in other words, independent women.

If there is not a restraining resident male, then the government, in this worldview, is called upon to restrain not just females born into and not yet escaped this religion, but ALL females (especially mothers) everywhere within their spheres of influence.  I say this having looked at states (such as Ohio) voting in things like “Fatherhood commissions” whose membership specifically targets counties with higher percentages of single mother head of household.  I also say this noticing the unequal handling of the word “father” versus “mother” in even places such as whitehouse.gov when describing issues; topics addressed more at the familycourtmatters wordpress blog.

But, frankly, I’m tired of it!  Our children, male and female, are growing up affected by this attitude; children are sensitive and pick up rapidly on the attitudes of the adults around them.  Everyone needs to understand how these religions think and act, and start to acknowledge the influence – they are right in the middle of government and have no intention of being booted out.  Sad to say, the Obama Administration is hardly any different — on this matter.  For one, because it’s also such a financial matter….

Another reference, “Women in Mormonism:

The Role of Women in Mormonism

This article is used with the author’s permission. I found it to be particularly insightful. This might help explain to the readers why for every letter I get from a man, I get 4 letters from women who were Mormons. This ratio has held consistent now for the last 3 months. – Eric 2/9/96.

(This article is shocking.  I have linked to it…  here are the first several paragraphs.  NOTE:  while some practices may have changed, the attitudes underlying them — and the religious beliefs — have not.   Therefore it’s hardly surprising who was the first state governor to make this proclamation.)

Author’s name: Jessica Longaker

The Bibliography is on the bottom of this page

Religious Studies 263

March 27, 1995

Women and Mormonism

Many religions have recently begun changing in an attempt to equalize the roles and responsibilities of men and women. Mormonism is one of the exceptions. The Mormon position on women has changed little since the early 1800′s, when the official view was that “woman’s primary place is in the home, where she is to rear children and abide by the righteous counsel of her husband” (McConkie 844). This attitude, coupled with the doctrine of polygamy and the absolute power claimed by the men of the church, created a legacy of profound sexism which modern Mormonism has been unable to escape.

Mormonism has created an ingenious system of oppression, in which opposition towards men is tantamount to arguing with God. The Mormon religion makes no distinction between clergy and laity, at least with regard to men (Laake 9). All Mormon men are ordained as members of the “priesthood,” with the absolute authority to preach the gospel, bestow blessings, prophecy, perform healings and baptisms, and generally speak for God. “Their priesthood gives them the right to advise and instruct the Saints (i.e., Mormons), and their jurisdiction extends over all things spiritual and temporal” (Snowden 134).

At age twelve, boys become members of the Aaronic, or lesser priesthood, and at nineteen become eligible for the Melchezedek, or higher priesthood. Members of either priesthood are higher authorities on everything than are non-members. Women are, of course, excluded from the priesthood. This practice in effect says that a woman’s prepubescent son is more qualified to advise her than she is to advise him. The official explanation is that women are kept from having the priesthood because women are more spiritual than men, therefore, men need to have the priesthood to teach them how to be better people (Johnson 86). Women are also told that, because they have the all- important ability to bear children, men need the power of the priesthood merely to remain equal with them.

The most notorious example of Mormon treatment of women is, of course, the practice of polygamy. In early 1843, Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church, announced to the press that, despite rumors to the contrary, the Latter-Day Saints did not practice polygamy and believed it was an abomination (Wallace 53). He spoke the truth as far as the vast majority of Mormons was concerned, for polygamy is expressly forbidden in the Book of Mormon. However, Joseph himself had been married to at least eleven women besides his legal wife by 1843. (Wallace 52). The first of these, in 1835, was a seventeen year old orphan who had been taken in by his wife, Emma Smith. Joseph apparently married all of these women without the knowledge of either his wife or his fellow Mormons (Wallace 52).

On July 12, 1843, Joseph Smith declared that God had given him a new revelation concerning marriage and he revealed it to his brother and other high-ranking male church members. This revelation from God, at one point, specifically instructed “mine handmaid Emma Smith, Joseph’s wife” to accept this doctrine and allow Joseph to have as many wives as he liked, as long as they were all “virtuous and pure” (Snowden 191). Emma Smith was a very strong-willed woman, and Joseph was so frightened of her wrath that he sent his brother Hyrum to inform her of God’s plan. Emma was understandably scornful, and threw Hyrum out of her house (Wallace 55). Later, she managed to obtain a written copy of the revelation, and while in Joseph’s presence, tossed it directly into the fireplace. However, the damage had already been done. Joseph is said to have been married to twenty-seven wives at the time of his death (Snowden 282). Emma left the church after his death and later denied that her husband had ever practiced polygamy (Wallace 65).

There were many reasons given for the practice of polygamy. The one most popular during the time was, of course, that God had commanded it, through Joseph Smith. The Mormon belief is that polygamy is holy and was practiced commonly in ancient times until people began spreading false religions. Adam, in his previous, spiritual existence, had many wives, of whom Eve was just one (Wallace 291). Jesus was also a polygamist “who was married whereby He could see His seed before He was crucified” (Hoekema 56), and his wives were Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene. Mormon Doctrine states that the president of the church had to suspend the practice of polygamy in 1890 because of the conditions at the time, but “obviously the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming…” (578).

There were other justifications for polygamy. Mormons were often fond of stating that they were better than “Gentiles,” as non-Mormons are called, because their system of polygamy kept them from committing the sin of adultery. Polygamous marriage was supposed to “make possible the procreation of enough bodies for thousands of spirits which have long awaited incarnation” (Snowden 141). Some Mormons today explain that many men died from war and disease, and all of the extra women needed husbands to support them. A less sympathetic view of polygamy was voiced by Sir Richard Burton on a visit to Utah. He said, “The..motive for polygamy in Utah is economy. Servants are rare and costly; it is cheaper and more comfortable to marry them” (Wallace 94).

Polygamous marriage is basically essential to Mormon theology. Mormon Doctrine states that God was once a human man, and “He is now a glorified, resurrected Personage having a tangible body of flesh and bones” (250). As a matter of fact, “all gods first existed as spirits, came to an earth to receive bodies, and then, after having passed through a period of probation on the aforesaid earth, were advanced to the exalted position they now enjoy” (Hoekema 38). After death, a good Mormon man who has followed a few certain rules is catapulted to this same status and receives his own planet to populate and rule over (Fife 103). To receive this honor, a man must be “married for eternity” in the Mormon temple. This special marriage is binding after death as well as until it.

“Celestial” marriage, as this eternal marriage is often called, is essential for Mormon women. Without being celestially married to a holder of the priesthood, a woman cannot be “saved” (Green 154). Mary Ettie Smith, a Mormon woman who left the church and Utah in 1856, said that “women do not amount to much in themselves,” and that women in those times were often celestially married to men they had no intention of ever living with, so that they could have a man who would be able to get them into heaven (Green 154).

In the temple marriage ceremony, women are given secret names known only to their husbands, for identification purposes, so their husbands can pull them through to “the other side” after death (Laake 118). During the marriage ceremony, until 1990, men made their temple covenants directly to God, while the women had to make their temple covenants to their husbands (Laake 328).  . . .

In Mormon-dominated Utah, in 1978, seventy percent of the teenage brides were pregnant at their weddings (Johnson 39).

However, the Mormon church is more tolerant of unwed mothers or pregnant brides than it is of divorced women (Laake 217). No matter how sinful the circumstances, a pregnant woman is fulfilling God’s plan and her purpose in life, by providing a body for one of the many spirits waiting to be born. Bearing children is the main purpose of a woman in this life; Sonia Johnson stated that, “I’d been conditioned to believe that if I didn’t have babies, I wasn’t worth much. Having children was what women were made for” (Johnson 42).

The Mormon church of today is still clinging to the beliefs of the nineteenth century; ideas which are becoming more outmoded every day. A few women in the Mormon church are trying to make a difference, but they are usually swiftly excommunicated (Laake 342; Johnson 351). In Mormon magazines, which are full of advice for women from the heads of the church, the message has changed in response to the feminist movement. In 1964, advice on marriage and divorce was fairly dispassionate; by 1972, these topics were addressed with increasing panic and harshness (Laake 175). Feminists are described as “the Pied Pipers of sin who have led women away from the divine role of womanhood down the pathway of error” (Laake 176). Obviously, the Mormon church is not going to alter its views on women in the immediate future. It is questionable whether it is even possible for Mormonism to equalize the roles of men and women, because the oppression of women is so integral to the religion. Men and women cannot truly become equal in the church, for the basic tenets of Mormonism are so fraught with sexism that equality would change the religion beyond recognition.


I have to say in hindsight, that the same is true of other, perhaps a little less blatant, but still holding to the same concepts in general, Christianity.

Compare the “persecution” of Marriage-promoter Chik-Fil-A (who has donated to the cause, their name keeps coming up), to the persecution of women under the Mormons in 1800s (and today), or the Waldensians — who allowed women to preach as laity — in prior centuries, which persecution lasted centuries, too.  This appears over the Right Way/Wrong Way graphic which (if one clicks) reads:  “it’s difficult to fathom traditional marriage is now politically incorrect according to the cultural left:”  (credit googleimages)

It's difficult to fathom traditional marriage is now politically incorrect according to the cultural left.

Mountain View (California) is tinkering with the idea of dragging its feet on a potential Chick-Fil-A opening, mayors have come out claiming they would fight the chicken franchise from coming to their city, and now petitions are being circulated to kick out Chick-Fil-A from the locations on college campuses.

Additionally, Santa Barbara’s architect board has developed a case of cold feet about approving landscaping plans for a Chick-Fil-A restaurant which effectively halted the project from moving forward. Five of the board came down with a strange case of abstaining from voting.

. . .

It’s amazing how many people are so adamant against just speaking for traditional marriage. The vast majority of those against speaking against traditional marriage probably came from a traditional marriage. Strangely it is not what Chick-Fil-A is doing as a corporation, but what their president is believing. 

Not it’s not.  It’s about what they have been FUNDING!

  1. The Thinking Housewife › Flocking to Chick-Fil-A www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2012/07/flocking-to-chick-fil-a/ Jul 31, 2012 – They were discussing Chick-Fil-A. I’m going to find the closest one and Marriage CoMission, the biggest recipient of funding, appears to be  . . . .
  2. Jesse Powell writes:

    The controversy surrounding Chick-Fil-A revolves around [CEO Dan Cathy’s] statements in support of marriage and the corporate donations to the company’s charitable arm, WinShape. Leftists often complain about corporations being “greedy,” and they advocate for “corporate responsibility” and the need for corporations to “give back to the community.” This is exactly what Chick-Fil-A is doing through WinShape.

    In 2010, Chick-Fil-A donated $8.1 million to WinShape, of which two million dollars went to pro-marriage and Christian groups. In 2010, WinShape gave $1.2 million to the Marriage & Family Foundation, $500,000 to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and $250,000 to the National Christian Foundation. The Marriage & Family Foundation was originally named the Marriage and Family Legacy Fund whose purpose was to be the “implementation and funding arm” of the Marriage CoMission.

    The Marriage CoMission is intended to be a coalition of pro-family businesses, church groups, city leaders, and other civic institutions seeking to promote together a “marriage renaissance.”

    Interestingly, while doing my research on the three biggest “anti-gay” groups that WinShape supports, I never saw even a single reference to homosexuality on any of the associated websites. Marriage CoMission, the biggest recipient of funding, appears to be a bland ,mildly social conservative effort to promote marriage based on creating a collaboration between businesses, church groups, city officials, and various other prominent citizens.

This writer is not “up on” the welfare diversions to marriage programming, and where groups like “Marriage CoMission” fit in, obviously, to divorce and custody matters, which don’t even get a mention here….

On the bibliography here was a book by an ex-Mormon woman, Deborah Laake, who described her experiences; she is not just a blogger — she’s a journalist.  Wikipedia (on the title of the book):

In this book, Deborah Laake, a former member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, chronicles her experiences with Mormonismand the various rituals performed in their temples. Laake recounts her studies at the Brigham Young University, her loveless first marriage at nineteen, her subsequent divorce and the problems she encountered with the Mormon authorities and her relatives due to her practice of masturbation. She claims these things caused her to be ostracised and eventually hospitalised in a mental institution because of the pressures and sexual repression exerted by her church.

In 1994, a second edition of the book was published with additional information.

A 1994 article from the “Phoenix New Times”; too bad there were “0″ comments.  Just two years later (1996 welfare reform) this information would become even more relevant.

THE YEAR OF LIVING LITERALLY BEST-SELLING AUTHOR DEBORAH LAAKE SURVIVES SUCCESS, CONTROVERSY, MALIGNANCY

Comments (0)By Michael Kiefer Wednesday, May 25 1994

As of last Sunday, Deborah Laake‘s book Secret Ceremonies sat at No. 11 on the New York TimesBestseller List for paperback nonfiction after nine weeks on the list. Laake is a staff writer for New Times and an executive managing editor for the five cities in which New Times has newspapers, though for nearly a year she has been on medical leave fighting breast cancer.

Secret Ceremonies, for those who have not yet read it, documents an earlier struggle in Laake’s life: coming of age in the Mormon church, then failing to conform to its rigid dogma, especially its subjugation of women. After a pair of divorces–and the sexual suspicion and humiliating “rehabilitation” that followed–and two psychiatric hospitalizations, she fell away from the church altogether and saved herself from someone else’s idea of salvation.

To date, there are more than 500,000 copies of the book in print; it spent 15 weeks on the New York Times best-seller list for hardcover nonfiction, rising to No. 8 last summer

{{. . . .Mormon responses . . .}}

Success brings tumult. Just days after the book came out in April 1993, a Mormon bishop showed up at New Times’ office to inform Laake that she was to be excommunicated. Just as the banner “Banned in Boston” guaranteed book sales in earlier decades, the orchestrated Mormon opposition to Secret Ceremonies clinched this book’s popularity. “If they had just ignored the book, it might have gone away,” Laake says. “Instead, they made complete jerks of themselves, and the book has just sold better and better.”

Cadres of Mormon women, hand-picked by their male priesthood leaders, appeared at book signings and on talk shows. On the Sonya Live TV show, Laake debated a former Miss America and a church authority named Beverly Campbell, whom Laake describes as a “cross between Phyllis Schlafly and Dana Carvey‘s Church Lady.” “They both just screamed at me for the entire hour and said I was a liar,” Laake says. At a local broadcast in Portland, Oregon, a packed gallery hooted and laughed at inappropriate moments, and–to Laake’s mind–reacted out of proportion to what she had written. She challenged the audience, asking, “How many of you actually read my book?” Two women raised their hands, so she snapped back, “Oh, so you’re angry on the basis of hearsay?”


Just a note — in a culture hostile to female independence for the masses (although we see professional women in positions of power in the United States — attorneys, judges, and SOME Senators….) other women are often manipulated and incited to attack perceived heresy.    FYI, this is not restricted to religious groups only; I have noticed it and am dealing with middle-aged female gangsterism at this point in time, but (in my particular case) there are two males involved in inciting it; it’s I believe an off-shoot of too much off this sort of religion around for too long in too many high places.  It is rarely very far below the surface and therefore takes little to call forth from otherwise what would seem to be progressive, liberal (etc.) or even agnostic individuals. . . .


“The law of God requires sex, marriage, and reproduction.” (from the light-green background site, above, “mormon beliefs” — they are referring to the opening chapters of Genesis

This is a frightening religion for women.  Keep it out of the Governor’s and the POTUS, please!  FYI, I know at least one noncustodial Mormon mother in a bind.

  • The Okalhoma Marriage Initiative - In his January 1999 inaugural address,Governor Frank Keating declared war on divorce and vowed to reduce the divorce rate by1/3 by the year 2010 in Oklahoma. In March of 1999, he convened the First Governor’s Conference onMarriage and a year later, in March, 2000, announced a $10 million dollar comprehensive plan using 10% of the state’s surplus welfare TANF funds to promote awareness of the value of marriage and to provide marriage education programs at all levels.(http://www.oklaosf.state.ok.us/~governor/regier.htm)  [[link broken now...]]

Just a little question — if someone in Oklahoma was holding on to a $10 million surplus, perhas another option would’ve been to distribute it to the impoverished families, rather than DIVERT it to already flourishing PhD’s already on the gov’t take — those are the real “welfare queens” (and kings) in my opinion — not “the poor”!

NOTE: The Keatings (again) hanging out in the Smartmarriages conference. . . .

  • He and First Lady Cathy Keating opened the 2000 Smart Marriages conference and 60 Oklahoma program staff attended and shared Oklahoma’s plans with the rest of the nation.For comprehensive overviewand annual updates on this initiative, order recoredings: #’s755-418, 753-416,752-201,751-201,“Oklahoma: Leading the Way” at 800-241-7785. 90 min sessions on CD, MP3, cassette: $15 each.
  • {{HELLOOooo — any poor people — future targets — maybe they should take some of the $10 million and send them the $15 recordings of what their future was about to hold…NOTICE THE PRACTICE – IT WAS AN OUT OF STATE MEETING (I’LL BET) and THE PUBLIC WAS NOT INVITED; NOR COULD THE PUBLIC ATTEND; THE CONFERENCES AREN’T FREE, ARE THEY??.}}
  • In October 1999 Arkansas Governor Huckabee,convened a Governor’s Conference onthe Family declared a marital emergency and called for a 50% reduction of divorcein the state and nationally. He encouraged the formation of Community Marriage Policies acrossthe state and the nation. In April 2001 he signed the Arkansas Marriage Covenant legislation into law.
  • In 1998, Flordia Governor Lawton Chiles signed “The Florida marriage Preparation and PreservationAct of 1998,” making Florida the first state to pass marriage education legislation. The act was thefirst to require marriage skills education as part of the state’s high school curriculum and the first tooffer an incentive for couples taking a marriage education skills course before applying for theirmarriage license. The act also mandated divorce education for all couples divorcing with minor children
  • .- In January 1999 Florida Gov Jeb Bush became the first governor to sign a Community Marriage Policy.Florida Governor Bush First to Endorse Community Marriage Policy
  • Mike McManus, Jan 1999May 1, 2003, Florida created the Commission on Marriage and Family Support. Legislation replaced the Florida Commission on Responsible Fatherhood with the Commission on Marriage and Family Support. Gov Jeb Bush, in signing the bill, said his goal was to strengthenfamilies – including marriage.- 2000, Montana Governor’s Conference andCouncil on Marriage and FamiliesLouisiana Governor’s Commission on Marriage and FamilyIn March 2001 Governor Mike Foster of Louisiana created the Governor’s Commission on Marriage and Family,chaired by Representative Sharon Broome and Mr. John Hogue. The Commission intends to examine ways to promotemarriage, particularly among populations with low marriage rates, and to remove obstacles created by lawor government that discourage marriage. The Commission receives advice from members of the Governor’s staffincluding Ms. Dana Reichert who is in charge of coordinating the expenditure of TANF monies in Louisiana.
  • Louisiana Marriage Proclamation - Governor Mike Foster, February 14, 1999

• Oklahoma Marriage Proclamation - Governor Brad Henry, Marriage Week, Feb 2005


Federal:

• Federal Marriage-Strengthening Legislation - eight allowable activities

Testimony on state progress in meeting the family formation goals of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, P.L.104-193) in consideration of reauthorization and funding of the legislation in 2002. May 22 hearing at House Ways and Means Committee, subcommittee on Human Resources, Wally Herger (CA), Chairman, on Welfare Issues and Marriage, it includes the Hearing Advisory, list of witnesses and their testimony (including Jerry Regier, Mark Anderson, Theo Ooms, David Popenoe, Mike and Harriet McManus, Pat Fagan) and the transcript of the hearing.

I BELIEVE THAT LAST LINK IS BROKEN, BUT THOSE HEARINGS CAN EASILY BE LOOKED UP.   FROM WHAT I’VE SEEN, THOSE WHO ACTUALLY SHOW UP AND SUBMIT  TESTIMONY ARE THOSE ALREADY LINED UP OR DRINKING FROM THE TROUGH.

Of the list above, “Mark Anderson” is an Arizona State Representative, i.e., a state legislator.  Perhaps this is not well known, perhaps it is — but he also is on record as a member of the Unification church!

  • Reference one from ICSA (International Cultic Studies Assessment)
  • Reference two from Phoenix Business Times, 2007 – Anderson is in 7th term as state legislator, is a realtor and a Unification Church Member.  If he won Congressional seat, he’d the only such member….
    • Anderson is a Realtor and a member of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church. If elected, he would be the only member of Congress to be part of the Unification Church.The Republican lawmaker cited Congress’ low approval ratings in considering a run. In the Legislature, Anderson has favored tuition and school tax credits; abstinence education programs; and removing junk food and sodas from public school vending machines.
  • Reference three from Democratic Underground contains other links, and includes responses of Anderson’s (state legislature) colleagues to his measure sponsoring gay marriage ban.
  • Actually, this very interesting 2004 “Zelphblog” points out how many LDS(Mormon) legislators and leadership exist in Arizona.  Interesting . . .
    • Both the Speaker of the House, Jake Flake, and the President of the Senate, Ken Bennett are LDS. So is the Senate Minority leader Jack Brown. Marilyn Jarrett is the Majority Whip. Mormons also chair some powerful committees, (Karen Johnson House Rules, Russell Pearce, House Appropriations) so they can hold any bills that they don’t like. Karen Johnson was named worst legislator of the year in 2002 by the Arizona Republic for abusing her authority as Rules Chair to hold up bills. But she ran unopposed in the Republican Primary in Mesa and is once again Chair of House Rules. Even though Karen has been married five times, she is a big believer in the family.

– Jerry Regier, see above.  Theo(Theodore) Ooms is AFCC and has been profiled, the McManus were paid by bush to write on marriage, as I recall (see Bill Berkowitz on some of this) and Pat Fagan (notice the familiar term) would seem to be from the Heritage Foundation.  I could be wrong.  This entire section (though I see it’s not spellchecked) looks better at the original link.

In fact, it was a 2001 hearing, and here’s the link and list of individuals:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg74227/html/CHRG-107hhrg74227.htm

WELFARE AND MARRIAGE ISSUES =========================================

HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES of the COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION __________

MAY 22, 2001 __________ Serial No. 107-28. . .

Subcommittee on Human Resources WALLY HERGER, California, Chairman (then they are listed):

WITNESSES

Anderson, Hon. Mark, Representative, Arizona House of
Representatives
………………………………………… 10
Center for Law and Social Policy, Theodora Ooms……………… 51
Edin, Kathryn, Northwestern University……………………… 76 *** [[I profiled recently]]
Fagan, Patrick F., Heritage Foundation……………………… 59
Marriage Savers, Michael J. and Harriet McManus, accompanied by,
Philip Cofer, Springdale, MD, and Terri Lucas, Lanham, MD…… 21
National Marriage Project, and Rutgers University, David Popenoe. 43
National Partnership for Women & Families, Laurie Rubiner…….. 82
Oklahoma Health and Human Services, and Oklahoma Department of
Health, Hon. Jerry Regier……………………………….. 15
Steuerle, Eugene C., Urban Institute……………………….. 89

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Alternatives to Marriage Project, Boston, MA, statement………. 107
NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York, NY, Jacqueline K.
Payne, Martha Davis, Yolanda Wu, and Sherry Leiwant, statement
and attachment…………………………………………. 108

Notice these are likely the only two opposing voices that showed up and submitted!

. . .Introduction to the announcement of the hearing:

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Herger stated: “I am very
concerned by the continued decline of the married, two-parent family in
America. Just today the Census Bureau reported that, during the past
decade, the percentage of families with children headed by women with
no husband present increased four times as fast as married-couple
families with children. These trends raise important issues in every
income bracket. But given the likelihood children in single-parent
households will live in poverty, the implications are especially
serious for lower-income families
. That’s why Congress allowed States
to spend TANF funds to promote marriage and discourage illegitimacy.
It’s time to review what States have done, examine what’s working, and
consider whether any additional measures are needed to better
strengthen families.”

FOCUS OF THE HEARING:

The focus of the hearing is to review how States have used TANF
funds to promote marriage and family formation
. The Subcommittee also
will receive testimony on additional approaches or programmatic changes
that may hold promise in better promoting marriage and family formation
and discouraging illegitimacy
.

I scrolled partway through this hearing (in 2001) and notice they are primarily referring to themselves, and the three key states of Oklahoma, Florida and Utah (plus of course Arizona). There’s a reference to the Parrotts (les and leslie) as “marriage ambassadors” — I profiled them here. Well they might — this is third-generation ultra-conservative Christian College (olivet nazarene, as I recall) and while living in the Northwest US, they have ties to Arizona and I found their names, and their nonprofit foundation’s names on a lot of Arizona real estate (LLCs). . . Moreover one of their parents (a mother) was living in a multi-million$$ home. I do not believe people of this stripe should be “marriage ambassadors.” . . .

The hearing also promoted PREP, Inc. — which we should say, “enough!!” ….

(Well, speaking of “enough” -that’s enough for this post, too!)

KEEP THIS SORT OF RELIGION OUT OF GOVERNMENT WHEREVER POSSIBLE. I SAY THIS AS A MOTHER, and someone networked with many other mothers who are beside themselves, having many of them already been married and been in so-called “Christian” marriages. They are going after men in prison and trying to get them out and reunited with the children, after which the mother is then taken OUT of the work force and INTO an expensive — and the odds stacked against her — court battle. THIS is part of the “single mothers in poverty” factor since these programs started picking up speed. They should be stopped! moreover, they do indeed bear close relationships with the Mormon and Unification Church philosophies about redemption and with the historic, and traditional Christian prohibitions (century after century) from women becoming priests, or pastors, women having the vote, being able to inherit property and very many more serious issues that are INappropriate for this time and this century.

We cannot afford the type of hate-based, fear-based theocracy, and I have just exposed and informed readers here, of its dangers, and its tactics. It does NOT want to engage women in open debate. People who reveal too many secrets are “ex-communicated” (D. Laake and her book, above) and they literally believe hogwash — or at least hogwash when it comes to setting fiscal and political policies for THIS world and THIS planet and — MORTALS!

This is no joke, it’s not funny — it’s a serious issue. I remind us that people are dying over this one issue in the USA, right now, and that’s honor killing and non-honor killing both. They are also being deprived of liberty and basic rights to handle their own children growing up, having committed no crime often, except protesting what we perceive, and what the state laws often call crimes — assault and battery and child molestation, kidnapping (child-stealing), etc.

I am going into the latter part of middle age having had one-third of my adult life spent fighting situations and people eliminating my existing income when I had a work ethic and had work. I represent many in this situation. The country is sending women a message that if crimes are committed against them, or even their CHILDREN, by a husband or father, they are not “real” crimes — and this is coming from these sorts of individuals, expressed in welfare policy and in religious institutions (which we are beginning to vacate as unsafe places for us and our kids, and where their fathers go to pick up the next woman so as to look better in court, thus using her, too).

This overall is setting up a cult-like situation at the national level. It needs to be identified and stopped. Again, look at the characteristics of cults and what they do!

There are few more volatile areas of discussion than religion, sex, money, the status of women — but all of these literally are at play, and have to be discussed.

I hope shortly to vacate this post and work more on the newer “COLD,HARD.FACT$” blog, bu wanted to get this much off my chest — and say, how could this have happened in the 1990s? Now it’s time to admit it did, wake up, and restructure.

See secondary post on Progressive Mormon Feminist, who has some things to say about her experience with Romney, and says it very well.  I expect to name this post something like “ChristianSects2-Progressive Mormon Feminist Speaks Out” although those three words are an oxymoron.  Can you really put new wine in old wineskins?  (oops, wrong religion) After all, Brigham Young isn’t Mitt Romney.  So let’s get a more current account of him in action — as a Mormon leader — in this century, or at least within lifetimes of some voting Americans, babyboomers + above…

Do Mormons believe in miracles?  Maybe we can get one at the polls, shortly  . . . . Maybe more women should be praying for one, like people used to pray for protection (Acts 4) in the times of Saul.  Their prayers were answered, apparently, by his conversion, giving them a little time of peace, although from the record, it looks like there was a bit of a Christian (not called Christian then) diaspora around that time, too….

Another reference to this Saddleback situation, which deserves a separate blog, as I learned more about this church recently.  This, FYI, is all too common a response to reports of violence by one spouse against another:

A Look at Saddleback’s Position on Domestic Violence from a Former Member

I had a situation where I had to overnight drop out of something I was engaged in in a church, because of direct threats (with weapons) waiting me at home afterwards; I came home to my ex sharpening his knives (a recent obsession) and suggesting I watch a violent, graphic, and not fictional, movie about the damage these knives could to.  I quit the next morning, still a little in trauma, and — in hindsight — no one followed up.  No one reported, no one confronted.  So i shouldn’t be judging the women who, having been treated this badly after reporting the head-smashing incident at Saddleback, from still tuning in.  But, hopefully, they’ll realize something very seriously amiss was off, and to get their heads out of feeding from that spiritual fountain.  Not only is Saddleback “about” Rick Warren (judging by the amount of trademarks he took out in his own name, for stuff he’s marketing from the church website; in short, he’s USING the church, personally) — but it turns out the entire campus there was a donation from a rich (on Forbes list of who’s that rich), David Green founder of Hobby Lobby.

This ranch is to train up future pastors in how to give the “big chill” to wives of members, including leaders probably, who report domestic violence to any of them:  here’s the businesswire article, 2011:

Saddleback Church to Receive Donation of 170-Acre Ranch

Church has leased property from Hobby Lobby for family retreat center, pastoral training center and regional church

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Saddleback Church will receive the 170-acre ranch it has leased from Hobby Lobby as a donation from the national arts and crafts retailer. The church, founded by Senior Pastor Rick Warren, has used the Rancho Capistrano property as an overnight retreat center for personal renewal, group fellowship and life planning, as well as a pastoral training center and regional church.

“We thank Hobby Lobby for this wonderful gift and look forward to seeing more lives changed through our ministry here.”

“Rick Warren, his staff and the church’s congregation have contributed to the Lord’s work on this property, and we couldn’t be more excited to donate this property to them,” said David Green, Hobby Lobby’s founder and CEO. “Pastor Warren’s contributions to the world are long and inspirational, and we hope this transaction adds to his church’s legacy of producing good in the world and providing hope to many.”

The Rancho Capistrano property was a gift in 1981 to Crystal Cathedral Ministries (CCM) from Donna Crean and her late husband John, founders of Fleetwood Enterprises. Under CCM, the ranch provided spiritual outreach through retreats and religious gatherings. The CCM board voted to sell the property to Hobby Lobby, which agreed to lease the property to Saddleback. Warren’s church has long recognized the need for a quiet retreat location for renewal and training. The ranch is ideal as it is located just 12 miles from the main Saddleback Church campus in Lake Forest.

Saddleback Church, founded by Warren and his wife Kay in 1980, is located in Lake Forest, Calif., with eight additional campuses across Southern California including Corona, Irvine, Laguna Woods, Orange, Huntington Beach, San Juan Capistrano, Anaheim and San Clemente. With an average weekly attendance of more than 22,000, it is among the 10 largest churches in America.

About Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Based in Oklahoma City, Hobby Lobby is a private retailer of more than 485 arts and crafts stores in 40 states. Hobby Lobby was founded by David Green in 1972. The company has grown from one 600-square-foot store. Hobby Lobby carries no long-term debt, is open only 66 hours per week and is closed on Sundays. The company has more than 19,500 employees

David Green: The Biblical Billionaire Backing The Evangelical Movement

This story appears in the October 8, 2012 issue of Forbes.
 Green and his family own 100% of the company and he ranks No. 79 on our list of the 400 richest Americans, with an estimated net worth of $4.5 billion. Hobby Lobby’s cash spigot currently makes him the largest individual donor to evangelical causes in America.  {$500 million was an estimate..}
(wikipedia):
He lives in southwest Oklahoma City with his wife Barbara. His son, Mart Green, is the founder and CEO of Mardel Christian and Educational Supply and of Every Tribe Entertainment.
Etc.:
. . .The company keeps four chaplains on the payroll and offers a free health clinic for staff at the headquarters–although not for everything; it’s suing the federal government to stop the mandate to cover emergency contraception through health insurance.
( but the minimum wage for FT employees IS $13/hour)
David Green
David Green, listed by Forbes magazine in 2004 as the world’s 514th richest person, doesn’t fit the tycoon stereotype in the least
(article shows he was a PK (Church of Christ), a son is Assemblies of God, etc.  everyone was into it.  This article was written by a pastor’s wife…)
Oh well….

Written by Let's Get Honest

October 21, 2012 at 10:48 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Family Court Injustice

Mom & Kids Need "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

Legal Schnauzer

Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family --and "Conciliation" -- Courts' Operations, Practices, and History

Legal Schnauzer

Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family --and "Conciliation" -- Courts' Operations, Practices, and History

ExposingTheRecord.org

Advocates for Change: Tell us about your JUDGE, ATTORNEY (pretender), or CPS...

Cold,Hard.Fact$

On Governmental Cashflow, CAFRs, and Economic Coups

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 267 other followers

%d bloggers like this: