Song Dedication for the Post Apocalypse

First REM:





But it wasn't the end after all, so take it away Barry:

More →

Sphere: Related Content

But it's starting to get INTERESTING again

My first involvement with the FLDS, YFZ, Warren Jeffs and the rest had to do with a certain commonality of purpose. I lost interest and couldn't advocate for anyone when fissures began to appear within the FLDS over the whole matter. Warren made it worse by being guilty of a few genuine crimes, and then falling on his sword, stupidly and publicly. So I thought I was out. Now I'm "pulled back in" by the sheer fascination of the ongoing hypocrisy and "Inspector Javert" quality of Texas' pursuit.

Fredrick Merril Jessop was a very bad man, and a very bad man was he.

Right?

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "When his eligibility date arrived, the parole board already had voted against releasing (Merril Jessop).

But:

"The parole panel voted in October against releasing Jessop, Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles spokesman Harry Battson said. Such pre-emptive actions are not uncommon."

Merril's crime, you know, the thing he was convicted of doing?

"Fredrick Merril Jessop, 76, is serving a 10-year sentence, which along with the $10,000 fine levied against him is the maximum penalty for the third-degree felony of performing an illegal ceremony."

A third degree felon is in essence an "accessory before the fact," Merril is said to have "said words" that motivated others to commit felonies. He had an opinion. He expressed it. He didn't cause anyone to do anything, that is anything for which he is imprisoned.

The FIRST Amendment to the US Constitution?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I frequently cite and quote Wikipedia though I have deep issues and differences with them regarding methodology and content. Wikipedia is a supreme example of Hegelian "synthesis" in real life. Whatever most people think is "the truth" according to the Wiki people. This is exacerbated when people with a cause masquerade as hundreds of people and "stuff the ballot box" of synthesis so as to send truth sliding into the ditch.

It thus (oddly) becomes useful to quote Wikipedia or cite them because often it is good to use a source that agrees with you, even though their every inclination is to disagree. It's sorta like the apostle Paul asserting that even heathens know better than to do some things, in his letters to the Corinthians.

The point? Merril is a very bad man from Wikipedia standards*, but you can still glean much from their heavily biased description. Namely, that he doesn't have much, if any, in the way of a criminal past.

He's not eligible for parole again until next year, in October, and he's in jail for an opinion, openly expressed and supposedly stated in our constitution, to be a protected form of speech coupled with a free practice of religion. It would appear that because Merril is in jail and is saddled with a staggering monthly child support bill, that if he ever gets parole, he's going straight back into the hoosegow for contempt. Effectively, he is at 76, being jailed for life for having a constitutionally protected opinion. (Qatar anyone?) At 76, and being jailed now for a while, he may not have the wherewithal to write a large 6 figure check.

When your freedoms are all gone, remember, this is the way they were lost.





*An example: The way the Wikipedia article on Merril is edited/written, we end up with this result: "Merril Jessop (born December 27, 1935[1]) was believed to be the de facto leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS Church) after its former leader, Warren Jeffs, resigned when he was convicted as an accomplice to rape in 2007..."

Who was convicted of rape? Merril or Warren? A reader might come away with an impression that Merril was. In addition, though it is literally true that Warren was "convicted as an accomplice to rape in 2007," Warren's conviction was overturned, in large part due to the fact that it was later found a star witness had perjured herself. Utah has no plans to retry the case, because a conviction is impossible per the Utah Supreme Court's opinion on the matter.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

A "Supralapsarian" Tale of Two Churches

One of the great problems for a "Supralapsarian" like myself, is that with it's attendant view that all is ordered, all (as Brandan Kraft says), down to "every grunt made by (a) beast," you walk into every doorway and every situation and know that it was purposed and intended from before the foundations of the world by God. That hardly means though, that you know what the resulting events actually mean.

This gets worse when the information is very specific. I still don't know what it means.

Faith and obedience come into play here. I can know a few things, and one of them is that the subject matter selected by two different pastors to preach when I walked through the door, was not an accident.

I still don't know what it means, beyond the selection of the topic material.

Argh.

The fact is that this blog has fallen into relative obscurity again, perhaps even worse than before it became popular. I don't contribute much and contributions are sporadic (so my "popularity" isn't much of a surprise). The "popularity" issue means that there is little chance those congregations and pastors will find and identify themselves in this piece. Most can't spell my name correctly. Most aren't looking anyway. I also have the evidence of attending Covenant Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Vermont for a year and a half while this blog was relatively popular, and no one visited it from the congregation, even though one or two members knew I blogged and my name was plastered all over it.

This is an elaborate way of saying I think it is safe when I am talking in vague terms when it comes to "where I've been." I wouldn't wish to cause more trouble than I have already.

I have attended two churches while living in (name of town omitted). In the case of the first, I had met the pastor once before in another venue, but he did not remember. When I walked through the door the first day, they were preaching on marriage. Not only did they preach on marriage, but Pastor (insert name here) actually doubled down on the concept of monogamy and kinda ground it in. I'll blow part of the punch line here and say that's sorta what happened in the next venue as well.

As with most "Reformed/Theologically Conservative" venues, the various parishioners are ravenously about "fresh meat" (me, in this case, being the meat) and generally don't let you go without thorough questioning. Having traveled about, the goals are all the same. The nice smiling folks want to know WHY you came, WHAT you believe, does it qualify as "Reformed" from their perspective, and it becomes very evident that the goal is to see WHEN you are going to become a member.

Because OF COURSE you believe EXACTLY what they believe.

Right?

There is of course "Are you MARRIED?" followed quickly by "Where's your WIFE?" and "How many Kids do you have?" and "Where are they what are they doing etc, etc."

In the first case, the denominational affiliate I attended had been planted by a former church of mine, and they started (without realizing this) to do all the above "drill downs" to ascertain my bona fides.

I got invited forthwith to the pastor's post church lunch-ish afternoon get together (complete with BEER, this congregation even has their own BEER variety, their very own, really) and the drill downs began in earnest.

What's the name of your church i haven't heard of them how can it be so small how did you get into that congregation Oh, you were THROWN out WHY? What about marriage do you believe....

And so on.

I was promised an audience with one of the other pastors that never materialized and was asked not to come back shortly thereafter.

So, the "God is Sovereign" guy that I am says to himself:

"Why of all Sundays did I come to a church on the day they're preaching about MONOGAMY?"

Months later I go to the "Other" denomination's local representative. In both cases I declare disinterest in formal membership because I am a member elsewhere. "It's a LONG story" I say (very true) and I omit mentioning certain uncomfortable details and succeed in rather oppressively controlling the conversations I get into (which bores many) but succeeds in steering clear (it would seem) of the third rail marriage topic.

I of course had been invited to attend the after church pot luck, where most of these discussions took place.

And the pastor preached on one of my favorite chapters (of late) in scripture.

Genesis 4.

Oh brother.

Maybe he'll be like a good little Reformed preacher, and he'll skip the uncomfortable bits in making his point.

Except, he doesn't.

Pastor reads the WHOLE chapter and doubles down on the plural marriage aspect, and of course declare it wrong.

You've got to know how infrequent such occurrences are, sitting in the pews of various reformed venues across the country. They do happen, but not that often.

I just "happened" or "accidentally" walked into these churches on the day they were preaching in part on the topic of plural marriage.

What's a "Supralapsarian" to do?

Or think?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Here we go again, Christians BEWARE

In a move that should frighten every "Fundamentalist" Christian in the country, Texas wants to take the Yearning for Zion ranch away from the FLDS and it's resident members:

The San Angelo Standard Times - "The Texas Attorney General's Office on Wednesday filed search and seizure paperwork in 51st District Court in Schleicher County, seeking to take over the 1,600-acre YFZ Ranch owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."

Of course, Texas isn't trying to render FLDS members homeless, no.....

"The Office of the Texas Attorney General doesn't know how many people still reside at the ranch, Strickland said. Nevertheless, the seizure 'is not an eviction notice,' he said. He said he didn't want to speculate on what might happen to the ranch if the state succeeds in seizing it."

It does look like the residents knew something was afoot earlier this year:

"It's uncertain how many people still live at the ranch. In 2008, more than 400 children were taken from the ranch before appellate courts ordered them returned to their families. Over the past year, massive building projects began to crop up around the ranch.

Then earlier this year, a huge tower that resembled an airport control tower was toppled shortly after it was finished, and work has halted on an amphitheater-like building larger than the temple on the property."

Supposedly, the way the money was brought in to finance the acquisition of the "Yearning for Zion" Ranch was illegal. Are you really sure than you're exempt? Just parceling the money out in a way that the government doesn't like, is illegal it would seem:

Fox News - "In the affidavit, prosecutors allege that sect members illegally structured financial transactions and that Jeffs personally toured the ranch before the land was purchased."

But no one has been charged with a crime, yet, just like before:

"To support prosecutors' claims that FLDS leaders financed the property through money laundering, one section in the affidavit lists 175 deposits, almost all of which are just less than $10,000, made at San Angelo banks over the course of two years and staggered by only a few days each. The total is about $1.5 million.

Prosecutors say the series of four-figure deposits -- which financial investigators call 'structuring' -- are typically done to evade federal reporting requirements.

However, the Texas attorney general's office, however, has not formally charged any FLDS members with any financial crimes."

Yup, a bunch of child molesters, who cares? Right? Except if you haven't read this blog, or others like it over the last four years, you probably think you know things about the YFZ affair that never happened, such as there being a bunch of pregnant teenage girls wandering around YFZ during the raid in 2008. To this date Texas has never said WHO they saw that was pregnant and "underage" when they raided YFZ, and only one girl out of all the underage girls on the ranch might have been visibly pregnant. That's wholly unremarkable in today's America.

This tactic can be used against YOUR church. The YFZ ranch is a FLDS church trust holding, and the church is being treated like a sort of organized crime syndicate. With as many laws as this country has, all they need to do is pick one your church members seem to violate, and start combing through your church's finances, and declare that you did something illegal to buy your land, and on it, you engaged in "crimes."

The smaller you are, the more conservative your beliefs, the greater the danger.

Just remember how they got the documents that they are using to seize the property:

The San Angelo Standard Times - "The ranch had been created with the intent of illegal activity, the affidavit alleges. The civil document liberally quotes Jeffs from his sacred documents, recovered from the ranch in the 2008 raid."

But the basis for the raid was a hoax call:

Fox News - "Texas Rangers raided the ranch following a call to a domestic abuse hotline that turned out to be false, and took 439 children into state custody."

The hoaxer now is completely forgotten in the narrative, as she was so obviously NOT genuine. Fox even forgets to mention that none of the kids were kept by Texas, but at least San Angelo's paper did remember:

"In 2008, more than 400 children were taken from the ranch before appellate courts ordered them returned to their families."

Go back to sleep now.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Love This, Read Below the Fold to Find the Humor :)

It's been around for a while, but it's well done.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Nicole Gagne, Still a Question Mark Three Years Later

This would come under the heading of "how soon we forget." A little over 3 years ago, Nicole Gagne, then 37, was nearly crushed to death by the collapse of a stairwell. "5 Pointz" is associated in the contemporary world with graffiti art (and other artistic efforts) in New York City.

In other minds it figures in the loosely "historical" recounting of the "Gangs of New York." For me, not living in Manhattan, it's about Nicole, an attractive young woman I've never met, whose parents frequented the same church I did at the time of her injury. It was only after that injury that I had any knowledge of the name "5 Pointz" or it's historic antecedent (Five Points). Certainly, I'd seen pictures of the buildings both gone and still standing, but it was a furtive thought, in and out of the backwaters of my mind. There's a lot to keep track of in the world.

Now that three years have gone by, "Meres One," (Jonathan Cohen) an artist from the area, who appreciates and participates and tends to try to preserve Graffiti Art, is preoccupied with that, and not Nicole, though he does remember:

From Complex Art & Design - "In April of 2009, Nicole Gagne, a jewelry designer and friend of Meres, was leaving her indoor studio when an external stairway had collapsed, thrusting her to a three-story tumble. 'Not only was [she] almost tragically killed, but it really put everything in the air. That led to a whole chain of events where the building got repainted and I wasn’t sure if they were going to keep it open,' Meres said. From what Meres hears, Nicole moved to a warmer place and is still recouping. Now, the inside of the 5 Pointz warehouse serves solely as storage space. Before the stair incident, 110 artists used the indoor studios to practice and display their crafts."

I guess it's only fair. I have an idealized vision of a woman I've never met in my head, and it's based I would guess on it being about me, not Mr. Cohen (Meres) and only more loosely about Nicole. We've never met, and probably will not. It seems Nicole (now 40) has moved to Florida (not sure) and continues to recover. Having been hit very hard (October of last year) and breaking not nearly as many bones, I have a certain empathy. Again, to excuse the preoccupation of "Meres One," I can easily be proved to only focus on that which interests me (my accident vs Nicole's, my circle of friends and interests vs Meres').

I would imagine in the world of lawsuits it's not advisable for Nicole to speak out. She seemed only interested in promoting her art through her name prior to the accident, and it does not surprise that she isn't promoting herself, as herself, afterward. But I think of her (pray) and wish her well and of course, don't know her. Your Modern Pharisee has mentioned her before, and regularly follows up to see if there have been any developments. If what I experienced in the aftermath of a bone crushing accident is any indication of what she now experiences, she's closer to the self inflicted woes of Evel Knievel, though she never flirted with those injuries, as he did.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Simple Answer for "Romney's Tax Returns"

It's one sentence long.

If there was anything criminal being concealed in Romney's tax returns, the IRS would be on it already.

That's the 1040EZ answer. The long form answer is that you better believe in a world of Joe the Plumber, those who want to know what's in them, already know what's in them. If there was anything criminal in them the investigation would have been started from outside the IRS by another Government agency, acting as a proxy for the Obama Campaign.

All that is contained in Romney's tax returns is information that can be characterized in a way that places Romney in a poor light with the electorate. It stands to reason that if these things are spoken of in public by Obama's campaign, or leaked, it will be fairly obvious that the point of origin of the information, was his Tax Returns. It will be fairly evident that the Conduit from the IRS to the Electorate (General Public) will be an inquiring Government official, who gives the information to the Press.

This of course is another reason you do not want the Government in Health care, since that unsightly lesion you have in thus and so a region, can become the topic of political speculation.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

You Have to Decide

With regard to my previous two posts:

So as not to get lost in the details, what I've been saying in part is that this issue isn't a fence sitting issue. It's fine that you need time to decide, but you do have to decide. Sexual relations have always been the province of religion, and even if you don't have a Priest or Pastor or Minister or Bishop or Elder or Shaman sitting in your bedroom with you, religion is in your bedroom and it should be there. Lest anybody make the mistake of proposing that I am in favor of a Theocracy, and the state putting a webcam in your bedroom, be clear that I'm not. The bedroom remains private but you have a confessional duty to disclose sin you have there, at least those sins with which you have an ongoing problem.

So we have the following problem which now seems to be settled by a lack of response to the position expressed by our small denomination of Christianity.

Since scripture makes few regulatory statements with regard to female bisexuals or lesbian relationships can we take a "live and let live" attitude toward disclosed attitudes or practices in that arena? Here are the consequences of that position:

1.) The marriage covenant (there is no specific word for marriage in scripture, it is a sort of covenant) binds all spouses to one another. As Dr. Keith "Allen" contended to me in person, polygyny marries all to one another. This is an exceedingly dangerous position to take.

Dr. "Allen" did contend to me that it ratifies sexual relations between women. Why? Because they are married to one another. Keith did not say it very clearly, but the idea is that the man has to be present or command it to initiate the relationship. He becomes a woman's husband, and by that act, makes them wives to one another.

So if one of them dies, is the marriage over? Marriage is to be sundered only by death or divorce. In the latter case, only for sufficient cause. If all are married to one another, the marriage lurches on without a man in the case of his death as a a lesbian marriage (thus scripture ratifies one form of same sex marriage) or it's ended when one woman dies. We can show this to be refuted by the death of Rachel. Leah stays on as wife as do the two concubines Bilhah and Zilpah. Since all are bound to one another, as Keith states, then only death ought to separate, but here it does not.

Reason says that once a spouse relationship starts, that shouldn't be sundered until death, that it continues, well, until death. This would not make a widow a widow if she was part of a plural marriage. The discussion of Abishag says that she was indeed, a widow. It was inappropriate due to the complexities of inheritance and succession, for Adonijah to have her. Neither Solomon (wiser than all of us combined) nor his mother suppose that Adonijah was trying to simultaneously wed all of David's wives, which included Bathsheba, Solomon's mother, who carried Adonijah's proposal to the King. Solomon rightly complains Adonijah is trying to steal the throne, not Solomon's mother Bathsheba.

Also if wives are part of the marriage, we know wives also don't divorce another wife, in a divorce, as they would necessarily have to do, if they were all in the marriage together. Deuteronomy says they don't.

We can rightly conclude as a result that marriage does not bind all spouses to one another, only wives to their husband. Marriage cannot cover what goes on between wives in a bed together, they're not married to one another.

Please combine the above with there being absolutely zero example of same sex play in scripture in the affirmative apart from Dr. "Allen's" personal assertion to me that the Hebrew masculine noun "rā'·ah" (רֵעַ rea`) was used to refer to other wives in Song of Songs 5:1. I conducted an extensive survey of the Hebrew word, and then I looked at the actual classification of the word in "Strong's." It's a masculine noun. Keith is guilty of the "word wrangling" forbidden in Timothy.

It no longer surprises me that a man who loudly proclaimed his status as "Resident Bible Scholar" (a claim once used in a forum he no longer frequents) or to be author of "Scholarly Teaching Articles" actually does work too poor to merit being seen as a "Bible Scholar" or writing "Scholarly" articles. The only two explanations for this (beyond being stupid) are that he isn't scholarly regardless of credential, or he's been rendered dishonest because of a personal agenda. It's as if he equates "to," "too" and "two" as being the same words in the previous sentence. I prefer he simply admits to an agenda, and then approaches his work with more objectivity. Barring that explanation he's a deceiver or stupid. I guess my I hope then is that he's stupid since the only alternative left after "stupid" or "agenda," is deceiver. I think I'd rather know someone stupid if those are the choices.

2.) The next consequence of Keith's assertions to me and his public work are that there are forms of sexual behavior that are not restricted to persons in wedlock and in the event that you agree with me on the prior point, that's where we're left. The lack of forbidding of sexually tinged behavior, behavior that intentionally excites or ends up fulfilling excitement or desire, is that it means we can engage in all forms of play that are sexual in nature as long as they don't involve penetration by a man with his phallus, below the navel or above the knee. This in truth is what Dr. "Allen" argues for. Must I again tell you how wide the door opens at this point? Since it's merely sex play, and not sexual "knowing" (yada), it's not spoken to in the Law of God as given to Moses. We therefore have no guidelines as to participants in such play, we only have the boundary lines of where a man can use his genitalia in a sort of twisted "Tropic of Cancer" Henry Miller sense. No restrictions exist for females except for the use of phallic substitutes between the "tropics" (navel and knees). Use your imagination as far as you're willing to go with that one, and then go about two steps further, and see if that's where you think we are, morally.

I don't know of a third choice on the Polyamory affirmative, agnostic or winking side of the street. The third choice is only as we in our church have defined it.

Females are for males, and only for her male, namely her husband. Scripture doesn't discuss what acts are acceptable between husband and a wife, only that it be between them. Scripture declares the marriage bed to be "undefiled." This is the simplicity of Deuteronomy 30, that truth really isn't hard stuff, and too far away or up or down to go get. Knowing and believing the word makes you wise as stated by Psalm 119.

Sexual behavior is the province of religion as I stated at the outset. Again, I have no intention of delving into the sex lives of those Christians I know. If you have been convicted of sin in that area, and if you haven't appropriately repented of it (to God and to those you sinned against and you have stopped doing it), you need to confess it. If you confess it in the affirmative (I'm right and I'm not going to stop) you should be eventually anathemized. If you repent, there is some variation of "70 x 7" that applies. In the latter case, you clearly state you are wrong.

Because of it's central and vital nature, we're not free to cop out as teachers in the area of sexual behavior. For that reason, all who purport to be teachers who endorse even a sort of "agnostic" or "live and let live" position with acknowledged behavior in this area are anathemized. I agree that a short period of debate is appropriate, but failure to repent is alienating. I cannot for instance, throw John Whitten or Keith "Allen" out of my church, they're not part of it, but I can proclaim them false prophets or teachers, and I have an absolute duty to do so. Both men need to absolutely declare it is wrong for women to engage in sex play with one another and all the consequences such behavior ratifies by corollary. No middle position is allowable. To take a middle position is to choose for permissiveness in a sinful way.

When it comes to non leaders in the church (those not elders, deacons, pastors or teachers or proclaiming to be such) I make the following ruling: If you are a member of our church and have unresolved questions in this area, practice nothing but heterosexual relations between you and your opposite sex spouse. Don't teach tolerance, refer to the teaching of our church in the matter. You are free to disagree but not practice in accordance with your disagreement. If you cannot abide by this, and are a member of our church, you're going to go out the door pretty soon. This is in fact the standard I used when being cast out of my own church in 2009/2010. You will also be shunned by us, teacher and congregant alike, regardless of church, if you can't abide by this standard.

I declare affirmatively "that as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." This is a tremendously frightening thing to do, as it seems to isolate us from the majority of the Christian Polygyny side of the marriage question, and sets us up as the righteous practitioners, and them as the odd men out. We're down to somewhere between being Samson, and Gideon, but much closer to Samson in number. I dislike the idea of being Elijah in the Cave or the Remnant. If right, that's a hard row to hoe. If wrong, that's the stuff cults are made of. I'm sure outside of our group, that word has already been used.

(I've made a number of changes to grammar, tense and forms of words as of about 11pm mountain time the date of this post. I was interrupted frequently in writing this and I can't keep track under those circumstances. It's what you get with an old man. :p. It's also what you get when you dare to use the word "stupid" with reference to another person.)

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Yada, Yada, Yada (Polyamory Part 2)

A really easy Hebrew word study. (As a sidebar, is that where "Yada, Yada, Yada REALLY comes from?)

In the continuing discussion of what amounts to "Can we have GROUP sex?" at "A Biblical Family (etc)." "Dr. Allen" continues to defend the positions, acts and situations a woman can involve herself in, provided she is married and married with another woman, to the same man. It's getting into the ditch quickly, and I confess to intentionally driving the discussion to that point. It belongs in the ditch. This discussion amounts to several subcategories.

Can we form a triangle? (A variation of the "69" sexual position question.)

I can't get it up but can I watch until I can? (You two girls go at it and I'll join in, my Viagra's not working yet.) This may be a variation of "you're two lesbians and I think that's hot," you want to go to church, and act like it's all normal so I'll marry you.

Will you do me while I do her?

Why don't we spread the Visqueen (plastic sheet), I'll get the Mazola oil, we'll turn out the light (or leave it on, much hotter) and see what happens.

Do all of the above to the Randy Newman song, "You Can Leave Your Hat on."

Many other variations follow, I think you get the point.

"Sola" at "A Biblical(?)" makes some excellent points, you should look.

I've made the argument, and Sola does too, that Scripture states women are for men, created for men, out of men, and essentially (and properly) seek to return to a man's Lordship and headship in a righteous Christian context.

Sex is for the "Husband/Wife" relationship and therefore to be between them.

Scripture (when it comes to human beings) only discusses WHO you should have sex with, not how you should go about it. Some contend it discusses sex acts, but I contend that this is only with regard to animals (a death penalty offense) and doesn't go into the bureaucratic micro managing regulation phone book writing descriptions of what you can and cannot do. Once you go there, you have gone there, and have to write up a description of everything you can and can't do. This got the Pharisees into the tithing of the mint, anise and cummin.

Christ said such micro inspection caused the Pharisees to omit "the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." Clearly this sort of micro inquiry is a last place waste of time compared with other matters, at best. The Pharisees (at their worst) tried to add to the law (a thing I have remarked is abhorrent to God) to clarify it. I am accused of trying to add to it in this discussion, but again, it really depends on whether or not God is saying which humans you can have sex with, or what kind of sex you can have.

Again, even if you mix the two you've still go the "what kind of sex" question, and you have the bureaucratic phone book of regulations and while Christ did say the question of tithing spices had weight, he said it didn't have much. He then went on to say "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel," for the Pharisees attention to that small matter. So, the Bible is written to direct you to the big picture, and leaves us to work out our salvation in that light.

This is what I contend is actually happening with the two rapidly separating factions in this debate. One group is trying to write a phone book, only pay attention to about 10 pages of it, and use it to ratify same sex relations between women in a marriage and the other is saying "do whatever, but only do it between a wife and a husband."

One view is much simpler than the other, fitting in with the ideas in Deuteronomy 30 and Psalm 119 that truth isn't that tough after all, it involves just knowing and staying in the word of God. "With whom may I have sex" is covered by "working out your salvation with fear and trembling" before God, and by the injunctions to refrain from things you personally think are sin, if you doubt. Namely, if you doubt a thing is righteous, then just don't do it.

One of the difficulties with the "what you can do" position is as the aforementioned "Sola" points out. It deteriorates into a discussion of what constitutes sex and what doesn't, and you're left with: "can your unmarried sons and daughters have oral sex" and other heavy petting questions. To go further, you have to ask if they can do so with each other, and whether or not it's a good idea for mothers and fathers to instruct (with participation) their sons and daughters in such activities. It's endless.

Why?

Well let's go back to Leviticus 18:22:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Now Romans 1:27:

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Which refers to Romans 1:26, where the same Greek word for "natural" is used:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:"

Key here is that Paul in writing this letter is making sure you know he's comparing verse 27, that which is about men, to verse 26, that which is about women. He's saying the injunction is the same.

Keith ("Dr. Allen") and his supporters contend what is "unnatural" is only anal sex.

Leviticus 18 is a general injunction, not using the Hebrew word "yada`" (ידע) that is used to denote penetrating penile sexual relations between husband and wife. So it's broader in it's injunction in my view. The text supports that view.

But Keith (and now John Whitten) say Paul in Romans goes on to not make a broad injunction, instead choosing only to slap at anal sex with men in Romans as a way of telling you not to "butt hump" your wife, or men for that matter.

Paul, the star scholar of Judaism for that time, omits the broad injunction so as to let us know that you can go down on your wife, but you can't sodomize her, confining himself to the previously unknown distinction (or imprecisely defined in Hebrew) of anal sex.

We then descend into micromanaging descriptions of what constitutes sex or sensuality, whether or not women are married to one another (Keith says they are, through their husband) and that sensuality is confined to the marriage bed, and so women can be "sensual" with one another, and so on. Since sensuality and penetration are different, and penetration with a penis is the key element to prohibited sexual relations, women can do whatever with one another in a marriage since they have no penis.

We've separated sex from sensuality at this point, and no guide in scripture is present to tell us that we can't be sensual outside the husband wife relationship and Keith in fact simply says the covering of male authority permits sensuality between women. I don't really know where he can justify this "covering" thought in scripture. All the arguments are massively weak. One depends on taking a word almost universally applied to men (I haven't surveyed all uses of the word yet) and making it mean "wives" in Song of Songs 5.

This uncorks the bottle and lets the Genie out. It's Pandora's box. The permutations regarding sexual behavior are nearly infinite, as long as there's no penetration. Richard Pryor once made crude reference to this, contending in a comic routine to his supposed wife, that he wasn't having sex with the naked girl he was also in bed with naked, because certain parts weren't joined. So did Former President Clinton.

Or there's my definition and I would contend, God's: It's who you have sex with, scripture argues affirmatively to have sex with only your husband, if you are a female, and only a wife, if you are a male. Thus no phone book is required, or no lengthy dissertation such as Keith writes in ABF.

There are many other avenues of discussion, some of which I allude to in my previous post. This discussion could go on forever, but you've got a choice, the simple or the complex, and God's word, as I said many times before, declares it's not really a regulatory nightmare, it's simple. Simplicity is embodied in the concept of with whom you may have sensual or sexual activity. Complexity is describing what parts of the body may connect with one another.

Are you really buying the idea that in the heat of passion, you slip up and slip it to the wife via the rear entrance, and you're subject to the death penalty or are you going with "the marriage bed is undefiled?"

Marriage, even for the plural guy, is to each woman individually, and as for me and the rest of our church, we're going with the marriage bed being undefiled, in that one on one context. The rest of you are playing with fire, and if you're a church leader, or purport to be one, I'm going to say you should recant, or be an anathema, both you and your unholy teaching. Professing to be wise, you have become fools.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Polygyny morphing to Polyamory

Anathema.

"Dr. Keith Allen" (A "nom de plume") and I sat down for coffee two weeks ago. We've had our agreements and our disagreements (sadly, mostly disagreements). In an effort to find or produce unity, I stay in touch with a few congregational sorts hoping that they might change, or that I might. I don't really care who changes as long as the one who changes, changes from what isn't true, to what is. That hope is fading fast.

"Dr. Allen" at least countenances bisexuality as a matter of Christian conscience, and I will have none of it.

We will start here:

Ecclesiastes 5:7 - "For when dreams increase and words grow many, there is vanity; but God is the one you must fear."

Ecclesiastes 12:11-13 - "The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd. And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." (KJV)

"Dr. Allen" is fond of many books and many names, pouring both out like a busted dam. We spent four hours July 8th, talking over a matter that really shouldn't even be named among us, but there is at least a glimmer of a question that he raised, so I agreed to think about it.

The great difficulty with "Dr. Allen's" approach? It needs way too many words. Words about a topic to which God devoted very little time. But in fairness, that's also Keith's best argument.

Contrast though, what Keith devotes all this time, and all his words (both spoken and written), to what God says:

Deuteronomy 30:12-15 & 19(b) -

"For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; (snip) therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live..."

Then there is Ockham's razor (lex parsimoniae, or parsimony or succinctness): Which is to "select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions."

Then there's always "KISS:" "Keep it simple, stupid."

Or as Festus said (albeit to the wrong guy): "Thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad."

Keith writes an article (to which I linked above) that is a reply to our conversation of the 8th, that is longer than "Song of Songs" (from which he derives his only positive proofs), or longer than the letters of James (the brief), Peter, John, and Jude combined. Solomon, God, Moses and Christ's brother all beat Brother Ockham to the punch, indeed, "There is nothing new, under the Sun."

Lest I multiply words myself, there is a difficult question here, but only if you ask the wrong one. You see, if the answer is "42," you really need to know what the question is.

So, having been too wordy myself in an effort to deal with Keith's question, I will downshift to the punch line:

It's really a question of whether or not The LORD says who you can have sex with or who you can't or which sex acts you can perform, and which sex acts you cannot.

We're a marvelously and dangerously inventive people, being rebellious as we are. Naming everything you can (and contrarily what you can't) do sexually is called the "Kama Sutra." God wanted to write the Bible, not "Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex (but Were Afraid to Ask)." Once we start naming sex acts as unacceptable or acceptable, you've got a section of the Library.

Our problem is a legitimate question at least in Western society: The whole of the Old Testament says nothing specifically about Lesbian/Bisexual behavior among women. We don't get to that until we get to Romans 1:26 & 27:

"God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Without going into too much detail (and information), Keith states that "Unnatural" in this context is anal sex, and his immediate justification was that there was no lubrication in the anus, so it's "unnatural" and "Sodomy." Hard to justify since to begin with, "Sodomy" is not a word in the original text, but a word for which variations are used in some translations.

We're out on a ledge here, so let's crawl back quickly to the original jumping off point in our discussion of what God permits sexually, and does not. It's either who you have sex with, or what you do as a sex act, or some combination of the two (the last being nearly as complex as the second).

I contend that scripture tells us you can only have sex in the "Husband - Wife" relationship. I say it this way because "Concubinage" is a legitimate form of that relationship, but not exactly "Marriage."

Keith says scripture gets into what you can do sexually, and since it doesn't say you can't (as a wife) "go down" on your "Sister Wife," you can. Particularly if the Husband who has "Headship" over the wife, asks or tells them to do so.

Fair enough, let's take that for a test drive:

Keith also appeals to Leviticus 18:22. If "unnatural" is anal sex, and that is what "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" means, then is it alright to give your neighbor (mano a mano now), a "blow job?"

We can extend this:

Is it alright for your two sons to do so?

Your sons and daughters? Your daughters to "play" with one another? You to school your kids sexually, as long as no one "shoves their show" into a place without lubrication or a vagina?

You see, once we define "unnatural" so narrowly, and start taking it out for a test drive, we've opened Pandora's box, and we're in the "Sex Reference" wing of the bookstore. The last time I looked, "Masters and Johnson's" sex manual at least weighed more than the Bible did.

You might be able to take me out on one of the above speculations as to who you can "play" with under Keith's rules, but please remember that first of all, they're not my rules. I don't think they're God's rules either (to put it mildly). I'm in the "who you can have sex with" camp, and to me it's "husband and wife." Women are for the man scripture tells us, from the beginning, and I only need to cite one sex act that isn't prohibited, for the door to be so open, that we won't need to speculate what Sodom and Gomorrah looked like, we'll be able to see it in our living room.

Keith also says that wives are "one flesh" with one another and that a polygyny is in essence a marriage to all the parties involved for all the parties involved. That leaves us with a Lesbian marriage if in the polygyny, the husband dies. That also means you can't marry other men if your husband dies, you all have to marry the same man, provided you want another man. He made extensions to kinship that I don't think work too well with other family members. I'm not sure he realized the problems he created.

This is why we need Ecclesiastical authority, a denomination. An over arching group to block the "reign of error" of an individual. After all, Paul submitted to James and to Peter.

Keith and his teaching are anathema, for any who listen to me, or see themselves under my authority, until he recants entirely and repents of this error. For what it's worth, I really hated writing this, but Nehemiah kicked butt and Paul wished (in illustration) that people would get their business hacked off. I still hated doing this and writing about such topics in such detail.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Then we don't need him either (It's Nihilism, Stupid)

Essentially he's telling us we don't need him either. He's President? Somebody else did that. He has legislative "accomplishments?" Somebody else did that. He's not necessary, he's just the lucky schlub someone picked to head the ticket. Joe Biden could do the job. He's not so special after all.

Obama is a Black Joe Biden I guess.

You didn't do anything. He didn't do anything. No one accomplishes anything and in 100 years we'll all be dead, right?



If you buy Obama's crap, you're about to get screwed.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Pegging Fiat Money to Land (Broad Stroke Reform, Part 1)

How to fix it lessons, part one. Our dollar really isn't worth anything it is said, so how do we make it worth something?

The Federal Government has assets, mostly in land. As alluded to earlier we as a nation could peg the dollar to land. This is good for several reasons.

First of all the Federal Government has too much land, so they could be made to give it up in this fashion, or a good portion of it. There is an arguable interest in mutual public ownership of land, but if we want that, we'd have to have an accompanying reduction in Federal Spending. There will be many arguments against this sort of solution. Perhaps the Feds are only required to sell land to fund deficits. Maybe they should have the right to sell off which portions they want to sell first. Perhaps mineral rights should be retained at a more local level, like the county.

There are a lot of Islands out there, in the South Pacific. Maybe if we freed up a few to be private property, maybe if a hotel could be built near "Hidden Lake" in Glacier Park, we'd be all a bit better off. There might be some need for covenants and zoning requirements. Maybe people could buy into US Citizenship with a certain size land purchase.

It's not a perfect solution, but having the Feds tie the buck to something real, would make our currency unique in the world. Unique and valuable. Next installment? How to deal with the problem of Washington DC itself, and yes, there is a solution.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Hilarious

Go ahead, but if you think you might die laughing, don't read the rest of this post.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

How to Balance the Federal Budget

It's really not hard. Stop spending and find something hard to back the buck. It's not Gold by the way.

"The United States government has direct ownership of almost 650 million acres of land (2.63 million square kilometers) – nearly 30% of its total territory. - Big Think"

The Feds for instance "84.5% of Nevada." What's the whole enchalada worth? All the land in the USA? The Feds for instance only own 69.1% of Alaska, but Alaska is our largest state. So the Fed's holdings in Alaska are greater in terms of acreage than a lot of states combined. 15 years ago it was worth "billions." In the age of typewriters, it was worth almost a billion. If you take a deep breath and realize that the real definition of inflation is not "rising prices" but the printing of money, then you know that a Billion in the '80's is a lot more money now.

But what is the actual value of Federal Lands now? Net Right Daily refers to the type written paper I linked to above when guessing at the value of Federal Oil and Gas rights at "$1.8 trillion, adjusted for inflation." It doesn't seem that anyone has a real account grasp of the total value of the holdings of our Federal Government. So how about a Dirt Standard? We don't have the assets outside of our land to back the dollar, so back it with dirt. We've got the dirt. I've been suggesting we should sell it off for years, though I don't recall if I've mentioned it here. It's a big country, so someone else as thought of this as well:

From "Winona 360" - "It might surprise you to hear that the Federal government owns 35% -- just about 650 million acres -- of the land mass of the United States. Most of this land is intended for all citizens (and future generations) to use and enjoy, and includes all National Parks, National Monuments, National Forests, and National Wildlife Refuges."

About a year ago, the Richmond Times Dispatch took a shot at it:

"Suppose, for instance, that 10 percent of the 650 million acres — 65 million acres — would be offered for sale only to domestic energy companies. Of course, each parcel sold would need to be priced at its respective market value and evaluated so as to weigh its comparative merits for producing energy versus being preserved for environmental or scenic value. For the sake of illustration, if these tracts were sold for an average of $1,500 per acre, the resulting revenue to repay our hemorrhaging national debt would be in the range of $97.5 trillion."

But, they must be using an early "Pentium" chip, because the total value of federal land at $1,500 an acre is more like a trillion. The concept of a trillion can be complicated by the fact that the British for instance, have more zeros in their trillion, than we do. For US consumption, a trillion is a "1" followed by 12 zeros. So 650,000,000 is 650 million. If you multiply it by 1000, that's 650,000,000,000. That's not quite 12 zeros. You add another half a thousand to the mix and it rounds up rather neatly to a trillion. It would seem that in dealing with Carl Sagan sized numbers, we can't quite get our minds around them.

Nevertheless, it's a lot of money. It's two trillion if you get an average of $3,000 an acre. I honestly don't know what the average value is, but doubtless oil and mineral right lands are going to pull a prettier penny than a swamp. The Debt Clock is racing toward a national debt figure if $16,000,000,000,000. So that's an eight of the national debt. If we backed the dollar with Federal Land value, in some creative way, I think it's going to take a chunk out of it. An eighth of the debt in terms of raw annual net worth of the lands the US Government holds is somewhat significant. At some point, the dollar must be rationalized to real value, not to numeric face value, or it's going to end up in the gutter. Stop spending and printing the dollar, and start backing it.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

I Won't Have Ron Paul to Kick Around Anymore

Well Dang. What will I write about? Who will you Paulie-Annas vote for?

Nobody? Consider that to be half a vote for Obama. I comment regularly on the previous Presidential Election in 2008. When all the Ron Paul for President signs came down on the east side of Flathead Lake, you know what replaced them? Obama for President signs.

The Washington Times - "Rep. Ron Paul of Texas said Monday he will not compete in primaries in any of the states that have not yet voted — essentially confirming Mitt Romney will win the Republican presidential nomination.

Mr. Paul said he will continue to work to win delegates in states that have already voted and where the process of delegate-selection is playing out. He said that’s a way to make his voice heard at the Republican nominating convention in Tampa, Fla., in August."

Yes, I voted for him. No I don't want him to be President. I voted for him because he couldn't win and I wanted to register with the Republican Party that I have largely Libertarian leanings. When I voted, absentee, I knew Ron couldn't win. Pauliacs and Paulie-Annas keep claiming that he can and then a large percentage of them say they won't vote if it's not possible to vote for "Dr. Paul." Get over yourselves. Dr. Paul is a professional candidate, not a Presidential Hopeful. It's a very good job.

Pray for the well being of the city (or country) you live in. Pray for the LORD's blessings upon your King (or President). You might also read that as vote in a similar way. Don't tear down the house so quickly. I know some of you want to. Don't.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

So I voted for Ron Paul in the Primary

Why did I do that?

That would be completely inconsistent, right? Not really, I use my vote to send messages. It's practical, in Montana, to vote in the Republican primary. Montana sends out ballots for the two leading parties in the state, for absentee voting. Montana's primary on on June 5th this year. It is way too likely that I will be traveling on that date so I asked for the absentee ballot. It's how I usually vote and even if I could vote Libertarian by absentee ballot, there aren't enough Libertarian candidates running for office in Montana for me to waste my time in their primary anyway. They're not getting elected in all likelihood and in most cases, the candidates they do forward, run generally unopposed in their own primaries.

So, I vote Republican, steering my party as much to the Libertarian side of the issues as I can. For instance former Congressman Rick Hill (one of our representatives back when we had 2) will probably be the Republican nominee for Governor, but the Tea Party (and me) both like Ken Miller. I voted for Ken. Rick will probably win and in truth he is a close second choice for me, so I won't have any trouble at all pulling the lever for him (or mailing in my paper ballot) in November.

My wife and I vote strategically and we have a lot of fun with our ballot and have our own little caucus right in our living room. It's a blast. We allocate our votes to steer toward freedom or to send a message when and outcome is a forgone conclusion. I voted Libertarian in the last Presidential Election (2008) because it was clear that McCain would win Montana's "winner take all" Presidential election for Electoral College representatives. My vote then became an expression of discontent over the way Republicans selected their candidate for President. I was not at all happy with McCain, but would have eagerly voted for him if the vote was at all close in Montana's 2008 November general election.

So I voted for Ron Paul because Ron is the only candidate that carries the Libertarian banner in the Republican Presidential Primary. Newt has quit. I liked and still liked Newt. Santorum quit. I liked Rick pretty well. I liked Cain better than both. I really wanted a much better candidate than any that were offered this cycle by the Republicans. Ron Paul offered me the opportunity to say to the Republican party that it ought to move more Right/Libertarian. It's not where I want it to be. It's not where most of my readers want it to be. I think I have three or four of you left don't I?

I won't vote for Ron Paul in the General Election because I don't think he'll be on the ballot and my views are well known as to Ron actually ascending to the Presidency. I might vote for the Libertarian if it's clear Mitt is running away with the race. It's way too early to say. I will only say that I have NEVER voted with a winning Presidential candidate. I always vote for losers. That's because when they're losing and they're the best alternative of the two leaders (always a Democrat or a Republican), they need my help. The rest of the time my vote has been cast strategically. I can safely say I've NEVER wasted my vote for President if you understand my criteria.

So Ron got my vote. I voted a whole slate of write in candidates on the ballot where the Republican was running unopposed. In some cases I voted for myself. I think the anonymity of my ballot is safely destroyed. I'm the Pharisee, and that's how I roll. With a Sadducee. That's because my vote has been used as a more benign version of the prophecy of Caiaphas throughout the years.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

God Willing: Tomorrow!

I've made my list:

God willing, I will begin doing it all, tomorrow. Well, in actual fact I've already gotten started but it's been half hearted. I wrote my book outline. I'm going to try to keep it short. I may be publishing it chapter by chapter ONLINE, but then edititing it after you folks offer criticism. Or not. This I haven't exactly decided on yet.

Also, tomorrow, I will tell you who I voted for in the Montana primary and why. You'll be surprised and probably think I'm a liar, but I'm not. If you don't think I'm a liar, you'll think I'm capricious and inconsistent. I'm not. I'll tell you why. Tomorrow.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Lesser of Three Evils

I will first digress and cover an issue that after repeated readings, I now know why only one set of sins (the matter of Uriah the Hittite) is covered negatively in the assessment of David the King. I've read this passage a lot, but always failed to notice one thing. David repented prior to being punished. Now that we've covered this great difference (with Uriah, David repented after being found out), on to show this matter applies to voting, and Ron Paul.

"David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly. For when David was up in the morning, the word of the LORD came unto the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying, Go and say unto David, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me. And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man. So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men. And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite."

I can't remember if the Facebook group's discussions are visible to the public, so I apologize if you can't see it, not being a member of the group, but one of the key quotes is this one:

"When choosing the lesser of two evils, you still are choosing evil."

Der.

I don't pretend to be an idealist, unless you take the monergist view that sin was ordained and this world we are living in is actually the ideal (big rabbit hole, not going there now). I speak more of the idealism of Joni Mitchell (love her) when she penned "Woodstock" & "We've got to get back to the garden." We can't get back to the garden, so pining for it is more than useless, it's sinful and dangerous. Joni is right that we are "caught in the Devil's bargain," but the lyrical idealism of retreating the path that got us there is a terrible folly. God blocks the path that we once took, when we take the wrong road. This is what the flaming sword is all about.

The words "only evil continually" are words used by God when referring to the thoughts of men. Also that our righteousness "is as filthy rags." It's clear in the word of God that God doesn't think so much of even our best efforts. They are laughably corrupt when measured against the motivations of a righteous God. The tedious assertion that we will make only a choice for good really condemns the chooser as self righteous. In view of the fact that we possess no righteousness other than that imparted to us by Christ, we'd do well to stop blustering in this way.

David's choice costs the lives of 70,000 men and untold women and children. This is the lesser of three evils that David picked. It doesn't even cost him more than 50 shekels personally, it costs his people. David builds an altar to God on land that he purchased from Araunah, with money he insisted Araunah take from him. This place is not insignificant, it is later memorialized by the construction of a Temple. The very place God's pestilence stopped is the site of the "merciful" end of the lesser of three evils that David chose at the offering of God. The Threshing Floor of Araunah (Ornan) the Jebusite is the Temple Mount.

Never come to me and say "I will not choose one of two evils" because you're holier than that. Choose. If you don't, I believe the condemnation of the "Lukewarm" is upon you and I would also equate you with servant of the parable, who buried his talent in the dirt, not wishing to risk losing it. In the end, even that was taken from him. Be salt instead, perfection awaits us after eternity begins, not here.

If Ron Paul is not on the ballot, and you won't vote for the best conservative alternative because he's not "good enough" then I have no time for you.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

I'm Back?

The LORD, through life experience, has clearly taught me not to jump the gun, so the following is with qualification.

I have not blogged for several reasons. The primary reason is that I am a Class A over the road truck driver now. I have my "own" truck (it's leased, ownership is a tenuous concept when leasing, at best). Running your own truck is running your own business. I'm a novice at this, but with God given talents, experience and his grace, I'm turning out to be good at it, from the standpoint of the bottom line. It is though, all consuming. Suffice it to say without going into great detail, I'm doing better financially than I ever have in my entire life. There have been setbacks. The instructive thing about the setbacks associated with this phase of my life is that I have survived them and come out better off than when I went into them. Granted, I would have been even better off if those disasters had not occurred (here I qualify the remark by saying as Paul did that "I speak as a fool"). Nevertheless instead of having tsunami type disasters that swamp (and sink) my ship of state, I have now gone through dire flooding, breaches and groundings, that I recover from and have something left over. Enough of the nautical references. I'm weathering the storm and have some boot money left. Is that nautical? This is new for me. For better than 25 years I've experienced setbacks so regular in nature and character that every time I get a little ahead, I anticipated having a disaster at least 10% larger than my largess. I'd get $10,000.00 ahead and it really got to the point that I wondered what $11,000.00 setback I was about to experience. And it would happen. Like clockwork. It was about the only predictable feature of my life, one I steadfastly refused to believe was going to happen again. Until it did. And then I believed. So it is hard for me to step up and state what I've been planning with any degree of certainty. Let me say, that God willing, this time next week, I'll be at home. For a month. I will possibly travel a bit, then I will work a month, then I will go home and travel for another month, and write. I may accelerate the traveling and writing into the first month, but that's the plan. It is my plan to serve as Church Planter for the nascent denomination that a plural family and I have started. There is at present, one church. There needs to be more. I am not worthy of this task. I barely qualify for it. I am a man of unclean lips and many other sinful characteristics, but it is clear to me that God has chosen me for this work, God help me indeed if I presume, and he did not choose me. A good predestinarian would say that he at least chose me to be a bad example in this regard. So if all goes as I planned, and God purposed what it is I envisioned, this time next week I'll be a 50% truck driver, and 50% apostle. This is a drop in earning for me, but that's a large measure of the success I've been experiencing. I can semi retire from the business I am in, at least for a year to a year and a half, and pursue that which is the greater task. Pray that I haven't assumed too much. Pray that this is a success from His point of view. Hugh McBryde

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Thomas Jefferson LIVES in Ron Paul? Really?

Ron Paul has a plethora of quotes on his site from Thomas Jefferson.

"Presidential Historian" and author Doug Weed says something to the effect that Thomas is reincarnated in Ron Paul. A discussion has been going on in a Facebook forum where it is asserted that when Ron Paul becomes President, our marriage issues will be essentially resolved. This relies on the same error that elects most bad Presidents, and the one that elected (in part), Barack Obama. It is that a President DOES have that much power (God save us), or that he will should have that much power. If a President is fulfilling his role as President, he shouldn't matter that much. He's important, but shouldn't matter that much. Thus when the time comes, I can vote for a Mitt Romney, or a John McCain, and do so happily. I seek to solve the nations ills on the level of Ron Paul's CURRENT office, that of Congressman. Elect another 300 Ron Paul types and fill the Senate with them too, and Barack's job is a desk job. I happily inveigh for the guy I want in the Presidency, and then go to the polling booth and try to build a more libertarian state, in the houses of Congress. My problem with Pauliacs and Paulie-Annas is that they think he will fix things as President. About the most that a President can do in a short period of time is mess things up. I contend Barack has done this, and that Ron Paul, if successful in any of his plans, would do more of the same. His solutions sound like lopping off limbs without anesthesia. The shock may well kill us. You have to go slowly so as not to capsize the ship of state. Phasing out bad programs over 5 years seems much more reasonable to me that trying to revamp them overnight. Pauliacs also forget (as he conveniently does) that Thomas Jefferson was the author of one of our Barbary wars. The first one. The Marine hymn intones "to the shores of Tripoli" for this reason. It's best to see what the founders DID with their ideas. It tells us more accurately what they really meant. A war. Halfway around the world. With Muslims. How George Bush I & II. I have concluded that Ron Paul has found out that running for President is a really good job, but he's got people believing his junk to the point that they may hand the election to the wrong guy. The really wrong guy. The Stones once said that politics was a "choice between Cancer and Polio." Few wiser things have been said. As I have said elsewhere, vote your conscience in the primaries, but vote defensively in the General Election. We can't let the wrong lizard get in (thanks Douglas Adams). Barack Obama is the Wrong Lizard. I'll vote for Romney because Romney isn't the Wrong Lizard. I'll vote as conservatively and as libertarian as I can in the Congressional elections in my state. I'll pray for the best. Why say this now? A large number of my Christian Polygynist friends insist on voting for Ron Paul, and in many cases, no one, if they can't vote for Dr. Paul. One friend went so far as to say he thinks it's all going to burn anyway, so the sooner the better. I ally more with King Hezekiah with peace and truth in his time. It's good that disaster comes tomorrow, far into the future, when we are gone. I've no desire to see the world burn in my time, or that of my children. If my children don't want it to burn for their children or in their time, they should see to it themselves, I will be gone. A vote for Ron or for no one in November is a vote for Barack Obama and destruction. I will not in a prissy way, declare that i won't vote for a man I essentially despise (Mitt Romney) to prove I don't like the choices given to me. A choice is a choice. If you don't make it, you really have made it. Be proactive. Do your best. Smile with me in November and vote for Mitt enthusiastically. Do your best to send him a congress with ideas like yours. Mitt's a capable administrator. That REALLY is the job of President. The discussion also included a Pollyanna view of how marriage laws would be made to change. Sorta a wand gets waived and it's done. No. Two things stand in the way of marriage laws being changed to be less intrusive. Marriage is a province of the State as long as there are income taxes, and statutory rape laws. In the first case, the Government wants to know your family classification so that they can assess your place in a progressive tax structure. "Progressive" is a nice way of saying "Tax the OTHER guy." Get rid of income taxes and you kick one strut out of the necessity of having legally registered marriages, which I despise more so than I do Mitt Romney. Child Rape laws raise a lot of dust in the discussion. Again, like with taxes, to make the laws work, people need to be classified. We forget easily that the Government doesn't really care if children are having sex, they only care if they have sex with adults without the proper papers. Marriage papers. There's no way out of legal registration of marriage if you allow sub 18 year old people to marry, and all states do. Ron Paul won't fix marriage. Ron Paul is a charlatan. Ron Paul is sucking away votes and we have a lot to do before marriage is in a more ideal state than it is today. Until then, vote for the least wrong lizard, and work for legalization of plural marriage. That's all I can offer. I can't offer Ron to you as a solution. He's not.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

MY return to blogging is imminent, until then watch the Nuge

A little figurative and over the top at points, but you get the picture.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Just Watch

Comment if you wish. God made it all.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Frame by Frame

This is my livelihood, being bent (straight?), hopefully for the last time.

After being bounced hard somewhere in between 4 and 5 times, and in the process, dropping what I calculate to be over 40 feet, my truck's frame was bent. In several places.

I know that frames can be bent back, and if done properly, with no noticeable effect. Most of today's cars are not body on frame construction, but I have been around body shops since the time when virtually all of them were. Bad frame repair is bad frame repair. Irreparable frames need to be completely replaced.

This is round two for the "Blew By You." I was told that frames after being straightened sometimes "settle" into a not so straight final result. I'm not entirely sure I believe that. I tend to think they just weren't straightened. If the explanation is plausible though, this new "rebending/straightening" might do the trick.

If not I greatly fear it will just keep bending into not so straight versions of it's former mostly straight self. I figure the truck was totaled if that turns out to be true, and it is in my view, totaled right now.

There are other nagging issues. The CD player doesn't work right anymore. The dash and various parts associated with it are loose. There are paw prints everywhere in the interior from various grease monkeys that worked on it. The fuel tanks do not drain or refill during use, correctly. Diesel tractors have a fuel return system that is supposed to keep the tanks evenly filled, but now mine doesn't do that. The fuel gauge has gone psychotic. The fifth wheel plate was replaced with a version that has been recalled for safety reasons, so it had to be replaced. Again. Tonight.

I have looked back on the entire experience with insurances, down time, being a driver with broken ribs and having my truck on the shelf for almost 4 months, and I've concluded I wouldn't do it. I don't know anyone who would. Except it seems that I did. Apparently few people who live through this sort of thing at my company do make it all the way through the experience.

More →

Sphere: Related Content