FLDS aren't welfare cheats after all.

[Fiannan]

Originally Posted by Just_A_Guy

Speaking of which . . .

Now now, porn helps good honest American businesses rake in tons of money. It's bad to look at the stuff but if you make money off it that's okay according to a lot of people. (please note the sarcasm here).

But back on track though, who here has visited the state capital of Utah? You will see an impressive statue there of none other than Brigham Young -- and how did he respond to laws he felt wree contrary to the Gospel?



The prophets of the Old Testament were not adulterers, the members of the Church who practiced polygamy in the 19th. Century were not adulterers nor are those today who take multiple wives and believe that committing to them and raising families is ordained of God...whether they be Mormon polygamists or Islamic men.

[MarginOfError]

Originally Posted by Fiannan

Now now, porn helps good honest American businesses rake in tons of money. It's bad to look at the stuff but if you make money off it that's okay according to a lot of people. (please note the sarcasm here).

But back on track though, who here has visited the state capital of Utah? You will see an impressive statue there of none other than Brigham Young -- and how did he respond to laws he felt wree contrary to the Gospel?



The prophets of the Old Testament were not adulterers, the members of the Church who practiced polygamy in the 19th. Century were not adulterers nor are those today who take multiple wives and believe that committing to them and raising families is ordained of God...whether they be Mormon polygamists or Islamic men.

According to US law they were, and they were treated accordingly. And now, by LDS doctrine, those living polygamous marriages are adulterers also. Your claim that they are not is quite contrary to current LDS teachings.

[Fiannan]

Originally Posted by MarginOfError

According to US law they were, and they were treated accordingly. And now, by LDS doctrine, those living polygamous marriages are adulterers also. Your claim that they are not is quite contrary to current LDS teachings.

You may be able to find some quotes but I have never seen official statements from the Church that states that polygamists are adulterers. They have said they are not part of the mainstream Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saings and they are not following the law of the land but I have not heard them call polygamists adulterers.

[MarginOfError]

Originally Posted by Fiannan

You may be able to find some quotes but I have never seen official statements from the Church that states that polygamists are adulterers. They have said they are not part of the mainstream Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saings and they are not following the law of the land but I have not heard them call polygamists adulterers.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you would agree that David committed adultery by taking Bath-sheba. Consider, then, D&C 132: 38-39

David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife;

So the sin, and the adultery, lies in taking a woman whom the Lord did not give to you. Again, according to LDS doctrine, polygamy is not sanctioned by the Lord at this time, in which case he would not be giving additional wives to anybody.

Now, I know what your first argument is going to be. "But Margin, after committing adultery with Bath-sheba, and sending her husband to die, he married her, and after that, it wasn't adultery anymore." As if somehow that's supposed to make it so much better.

But let's humor you for a second. Even if we let you have your claim that they are not adulterous, polygamy is still forbidden at this time, so taking any additional wives would constitute taking a wife that God did not give to you. So at the very least, you're still living in sin. Glad we could clear up that they aren't adulterers. Just gross sinners.

Regardless of David's adulterous status, these polygamist marriages are not recognized by the law nor by the Church, so for both entities, they are considered adulterous. Also, considering that the Church's definition of chastity is no sexual relations except to whom you are legally and lawfully married--and since polygamous marriages are not legal and lawful--these relations are by definition adulterous (you might be able to make the case for fornication, but it won't get you very far).

[MarginOfError]

Originally Posted by KristofferUmfrey

You have completely ignored the supportive articles about this group, haven't you? Are you so completely blinded by prejudice that you fail to see *any* good?

I've ignored nothing. I've been quite clear on the subject that they've not committed welfare fraud. That doesn't mean they aren't guilty of other offenses.

I wonder what the child support payments are like for a polygamous man.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by SisterofJared

The fact is, food stamp requirements do not require that all the household be husband/wife/children. A niece can live with you and you get food stamps for them. A group of unrelated people can live together and get food stamps. It's based on the number of people and the income, not relationship.(emphasis mine)

This is not true.

You’re confusing a “household” with all of the people in the house. A “household” is determined by all of the people one can claim on a tax return. Under your scenario, if the father and mother can claim the niece on their tax return, she is part of their “household,“ and the family would be eligible for the extra food and money allotment needed to take care of their niece.

But if the niece files her own tax return, then no, they cannot claim her as a deduction; thus, she is not part of the “household,' and the family will receive no allotments for her.

It has nothing to do with the fact that they all live in the same house.

A group of unrelated people can live together and get food stamps. It's based on the number of people and the income, not relationship.

This is completely untrue.

Again, it has to do with the “household,” as determined by the tax return--and if they all file separate tax returns, they are not a "household," and would never qualify for cash or food allotments.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edited to change this paragraph:

So it's obviously not fraud for a man to get food stamps for his 3 wives and 12 kids.

strikeout---It would be if he got away with it. There is no reason for him to claim all three of his wives on his tax return, as, being capable adults, they should be able to claim themselves, and file their own tax return. ---strikeout

The change: If you're saying he should be allowed to represent his family, which I'm assuming would include his entire family, at workforce services when they file for assistance, I agree.

However, if you're saying he merits more than one person's worth of cash or food allotment, because he has three families, I disagree with that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would have no problem making polygamy legal either, which would make it legal for him to claim all three wives.

In fact, I keep saying same-sex marriage and polygamy are going to be legal one day, because there’s no constitutional reason for them not to be.

But until that day comes, he can only claim one of his wives on his tax return; thus, the others are not part of his “household.” (I’m sure there are exceptions; I’m just going by the most common situation I am aware of.)

The program is an immoral program. It is socialist and is against the free agency God gave us.

What program?

If you're talking about welfare, there is no such thing anymore. It is called Training Asisstance for Needy Families, (TANF), and is limited to an up to five-year program, depending on the training goals outlined from the very beginning.

It is not immoral. It is a program that has helped hundreds of thousands of people, the vast majority of them parents, receive training so they can get out of poverty and find jobs that give their families a better quality of life. (However, as the poverty rate rises, this is, unfortunately, not the case like it used to be.)

The head of the household then contributes money back into the tax base, thus paying for the next student to have the same chance she did.

She, in this case, was me, and once I finished school I made a very good wage, and eventually an excellent wage.

I will always be incredibly grateful to the federal government and the state of Utah for helping me better the quality of my son’s life, by helping me better mine.

And even though I had already paid my share back when I became disabled, if I were still working I'd glady pay back more, if it helps the next person who comes along. Gladly.

I'm not sure this is what you were referring to, so if it was not, then just do a jig while you read it again to make it enjoyable.

Elphaba

[Fiannan]

MarginOfError, the Prophet Nathan pointed out to David that God had given him 6 wives (opps, God gave him this blessing) and then David had to go and arrange the death of an innocent man to get his wife. So the sin was not polygamy if God was the author of the blessing. The reason for Nathan's analogy of someone rich and then taking something from someone that didn't have as much was intended to illustrate David's selfish act. Again, polygamy was never the question.

And again, for you to bring up our church to condemn these people would be akin to condemning them for eating pork since eating pork is considered a transgression by orthodox Jews. These polygamists are not Jews so a rabbi would have no greater authority to them than Thomas Monson. As for saying it's immoral based on the law you have to remember that laws can change. Pornography used to be illegal and now it's widespread and legal in the USA. Yet in China it's illegal. So because it's legal in the USA is it moral? Same with polygamy. Polygamy is legal in many nations so does that make geography the most important factor in whether something is moral or not? God is no respector of persons or governments. Polygamists in the USA feel that the teachings of God promoted by Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, John Taylor, etc. are still valid and should take a superior position in people's lives than the laws of a flawed state.

Oh, and Elphaba, maybe what SisterofJared is refering to is that if a man has two wives -- one with 6 kids and the other with 4 then they can qualify for food stamps per household but he can't be inluded as one of the members of both households. So the food stamp office would grant them assistance based on one household with a husband, wife and 6 kids while the other household would have to apply as a "single" mother with 4 kids.

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by Just_A_Guy

Speaking of which . . .

I think I can understand that. Biologists should not miss the opportunity to first tag the Girls Gone Wild with tracer bands, before releasing them to their feral states. This costs money.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by Fiannan

Oh, and Elphaba, maybe what SisterofJared is refering to is that if a man has two wives -- one with 6 kids and the other with 4 then they can qualify for food stamps per household but he can't be inluded as one of the members of both households. So the food stamp office would grant them assistance based on one household with a husband, wife and 6 kids while the other household would have to apply as a "single" mother with 4 kids.

And this is a problem why?

Elphaba

[pam]

[QUOTE]

nor are those today who take multiple wives and believe that committing to them and raising families is ordained of God...whether they be Mormon polygamists or Islamic men

There are Mormon polygamists? Last I heard those practicing polygamy were excommunicated.