He is the way
Well-Known Member
- Apr 17, 2018
- 8,103
- 359
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
All for a good cause.The Mormon Church owns the largest cattle ranch in the US, with 44,000 cattle, it has been reported. They are apparently talking about the Deseret Ranch that spans three counties in central Florida.
A 19,000 acre tract of Deseret Ranch near the Orlando Airport was slated for development. I don't know if this plan was put on hold because of recession.
Following the acquisition of timberland in the panhandle, a couple of news outlets reported that the Mormon Church now owns almost 2% of the land in Florida.
Links
Mormon church set to become Florida's largest private landowner
Mormon Church Largest Private Landowner in Florida With 670,000 Acres
Read this on plural marriage in the OT:
Plural marriage Scriptures in the OT
In order to say that you have to be completely ignorant of the OT 'mandate' for polygamy. This was not just a cultural man-made phenomena, it was a God-based doctrine.
Read every word of the following scriptures and it will prove to you that God was blessing this practice.
Gen. 16:3
Gen. 17:7-10
Gen. 28:10-16
These have to do with Abraham and Jacob. Read how the Lord is with them. Since they practiced polygamy, and the Lord was with them, it must mean that there was a mandate from the Lord to practice, otherwise the Lord would have mandated that they stop polygamy. He did not stop it so he mandated it was right at that time.
Duet. 21:15 Here the Lord even puts this statute into the Law of Moses as recorded in the bible how to deal with a problem associated with polygamy. Hence, how greater mandate can you have than that the Lord put regulations for polygamy in the statutes of the Law of Moses.
Exodus 21:10 Here the Lord says that if a man takes another wife, her food and raiment and wifely duties will not be diminished. Hence, how greater mandate can you have than that the Lord put regulations for polygamy in the statutes of the Law of Moses.
Judges 8:30 Here the hero (Gideon) of the Midianite war, a miraculous victory for Israel as God was with Gideon and his small army defeats the innumerable Midianites. What did Gideon do when he got home. Did he become their king, no, he stayed a humble commoner, but he married many wives and had a bunch of children. A hero of God, and a polygamous man? Must have got a mandate from God, don't you think?
1 Sam. 1:1-2 You have already seen this one, where one of the great prophets of the OT is born from a polygamous father and mother. Must have been a mandate from the Lord if a prophet of God came from it, don't you think?
1 Sam. 25:42-43 Now here is where David comes into the picture. Critics of Mormon polygamy always use David and Solomon as if they are the only 2 to practice polygamy and they were kings and did bad in the sight of God.But this is before David was king and he took 2 wives. And a more interesting question is: can we say that Jesus came from a polygamous family? Jesus came from the line of David, a polygamous man. Interesting mandate.
2 Sam. 12:7-9 David was given his wives by the Lord. A strong mandate, don't you think?
1 Chron. 4:5 Ashur was a commoner and had 2 wives.
1 Chron. 8:8 Shaharain was a commoner and had 2 wives.
2 Chron. 13 Abijah was a king of Judah. He slew Jeroboam, the king of Israel. The Lord was with Abijah, and he had 14 wives and the Lord blessed him. Mandate?
2 Chron. 22:11 Jehoiada was a priest of Judah.
2 Chron. 23:8 The Lord was with Jehoiada. Mandate?
2 Chron. 24:3 Jehoiada took 2 wives. So here you have a priest of the Aaronic Priesthood and we know God was with him that practiced polygamy. There could not be a stronger mandate from God.
So as you can see, prophets and kings and priests, and important men, heroes and common men had the right to practice plural marriage, and there were statutes in the Law of Moses to cover plural marriage situations.
What do you think?
Read this on plural marriage in the OT:
Plural marriage Scriptures in the OT
In order to say that you have to be completely ignorant of the OT 'mandate' for polygamy. This was not just a cultural man-made phenomena, it was a God-based doctrine.
Read every word of the following scriptures and it will prove to you that God was blessing this practice.
Gen. 16:3
Gen. 17:7-10
Gen. 28:10-16
These have to do with Abraham and Jacob. Read how the Lord is with them. Since they practiced polygamy, and the Lord was with them, it must mean that there was a mandate from the Lord to practice, otherwise the Lord would have mandated that they stop polygamy. He did not stop it so he mandated it was right at that time.
Duet. 21:15 Here the Lord even puts this statute into the Law of Moses as recorded in the bible how to deal with a problem associated with polygamy. Hence, how greater mandate can you have than that the Lord put regulations for polygamy in the statutes of the Law of Moses.
Exodus 21:10 Here the Lord says that if a man takes another wife, her food and raiment and wifely duties will not be diminished. Hence, how greater mandate can you have than that the Lord put regulations for polygamy in the statutes of the Law of Moses.
Judges 8:30 Here the hero (Gideon) of the Midianite war, a miraculous victory for Israel as God was with Gideon and his small army defeats the innumerable Midianites. What did Gideon do when he got home. Did he become their king, no, he stayed a humble commoner, but he married many wives and had a bunch of children. A hero of God, and a polygamous man? Must have got a mandate from God, don't you think?
1 Sam. 1:1-2 You have already seen this one, where one of the great prophets of the OT is born from a polygamous father and mother. Must have been a mandate from the Lord if a prophet of God came from it, don't you think?
1 Sam. 25:42-43 Now here is where David comes into the picture. Critics of Mormon polygamy always use David and Solomon as if they are the only 2 to practice polygamy and they were kings and did bad in the sight of God.But this is before David was king and he took 2 wives. And a more interesting question is: can we say that Jesus came from a polygamous family? Jesus came from the line of David, a polygamous man. Interesting mandate.
2 Sam. 12:7-9 David was given his wives by the Lord. A strong mandate, don't you think?
1 Chron. 4:5 Ashur was a commoner and had 2 wives.
1 Chron. 8:8 Shaharain was a commoner and had 2 wives.
2 Chron. 13 Abijah was a king of Judah. He slew Jeroboam, the king of Israel. The Lord was with Abijah, and he had 14 wives and the Lord blessed him. Mandate?
2 Chron. 22:11 Jehoiada was a priest of Judah.
2 Chron. 23:8 The Lord was with Jehoiada. Mandate?
2 Chron. 24:3 Jehoiada took 2 wives. So here you have a priest of the Aaronic Priesthood and we know God was with him that practiced polygamy. There could not be a stronger mandate from God.
So as you can see, prophets and kings and priests, and important men, heroes and common men had the right to practice plural marriage, and there were statutes in the Law of Moses to cover plural marriage situations.
What do you think?
I did read it. And nothing in there said they would specifically plant citrus trees. In your attempt to link a separate article with your "quarter million citrus trees", you conveniently skip over the 40,000 head of cattle. To manage that much cattle, forests have to be cleared. Combine that with the methane of the cows and now your church is a growing contributor to global warming. Additionally, other agricultural crops will need the land cleared. So, please, stop trying to make excuses. It just makes you look bad.Did you read the article?
"
The St. Joe Company has played an important role in conserving the landscape of Florida’s Panhandle, and AgReserves, Inc., will build on that commitment while continuing to support the local economy."
The chairman of the board of AgReserves Inc. said Friday in a statement provided to the Deseret News that the company would remain invested in agriculture and conservation.
"This purchase clearly demonstrates the depth of AgReserves’ commitment to agriculture in Florida," Paul Genho said. "We are farmers and ranchers. We’ve been ranching in Florida for 63 years. We love to grow things. We think agriculture is a noble pursuit, and we are proud to be agriculturists. We help feed the world. We love the land and strive to be good citizens in the communities where we live and work. We preserve and protect our land and natural resources and plan far into the future for the places we call home. It is our intent that this purchase will remain in agriculture for a long, long time.”
A 2011 story in the Deseret News detailed some of the operations at the Deseret Ranches. The story said the land managed more than 40,000 head of cattle. The diverse ranch also is home to about a quarter million citrus trees, timberland, sod and tree farms, some commercial crops and large deposits of fossilized seashells used in road base.
From: LDS Church makes large timberland purchase in Florida Panhandle
NO, It was not a different article or a different link, it was this link both times. Here it is again:I did read it. And nothing in there said they would specifically plant citrus trees. In your attempt to link a separate article with your "quarter million citrus trees", you conveniently skip over the 40,000 head of cattle. To manage that much cattle, forests have to be cleared. Combine that with the methane of the cows and now your church is a growing contributor to global warming. Additionally, other agricultural crops will need the land cleared. So, please, stop trying to make excuses. It just makes you look bad.
NO, It was not a different article or a different link, it was this link both times. Here it is again:
LDS Church makes large timberland purchase in Florida Panhandle
Florida was very pleased with what The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints had done with the land they have purchased. So are the people receiving the food. I suspect you still have NOT read the article or you believe that 250,000 citrus trees will not help the environment or feed people in need. Pine trees may not be so good for the environment. Look what happened in California and Oregon. How much did that add to global warming?
NO, It was not a different article or a different link, it was this link both times. Here it is again:
LDS Church makes large timberland purchase in Florida Panhandle
Florida was very pleased with what The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints had done with the land they have purchased. So are the people receiving the food. I suspect you still have NOT read the article or you believe that 250,000 citrus trees will not help the environment or feed people in need. Pine trees may not be so good for the environment. Look what happened in California and Oregon. How much did that add to global warming?
The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints owns approximately 2% of Florida. Not all of that land is in the panhandle. Part of that land has 250,000 citrus trees (most likely in the south as you say) that help the environment. All plants are good for the environment whether they are pasture plants or pine trees. There are 94.8 million cattle in the United States. Forty thousand is minor compared to that. I wonder what would would have happened if someone else had bought the land. Would anyone have cared what they did with the land? It is only a big deal because it is owned by The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. No one seems to care about the other 94 plus million cattle. Does your church supply food for the hungry? Do they give them milk, butter, and meat as part of that food?I have read several articles on the LDS purchase of timber land in the Florida panhandle and there is no mention of citrus trees. Everyone believes that this land will be kept as timber. I believe that there is some LDS land further to the south that has citrus trees on it. Their holdings in citrus are minor compared to the timber and cattle ranching land.
You're funny. The 250,000 citrus trees has nothing to do with the current purchase and yet you want to make a big deal about it as if it proves some point you are trying to make. The article only points out it may be used for agriculture. Given the current use of LDS land in the general area, the likely use is timber harvest, cattle, or some other non-citrus tree crops. As Dale pointed out, most citrus tree orchards are further south in Florida to avoid potential freezing.NO, It was not a different article or a different link, it was this link both times. Here it is again:
LDS Church makes large timberland purchase in Florida Panhandle
Florida was very pleased with what The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints had done with the land they have purchased. So are the people receiving the food. I suspect you still have NOT read the article or you believe that 250,000 citrus trees will not help the environment or feed people in need. Pine trees may not be so good for the environment. Look what happened in California and Oregon. How much did that add to global warming?
Read this on plural marriage in the OT:
Plural marriage Scriptures in the OT
In order to say that you have to be completely ignorant of the OT 'mandate' for polygamy. This was not just a cultural man-made phenomena, it was a God-based doctrine.
Read every word of the following scriptures and it will prove to you that God was blessing this practice.
Gen. 16:3
Gen. 17:7-10
Gen. 28:10-16
These have to do with Abraham and Jacob. Read how the Lord is with them. Since they practiced polygamy, and the Lord was with them, it must mean that there was a mandate from the Lord to practice, otherwise the Lord would have mandated that they stop polygamy. He did not stop it so he mandated it was right at that time.
Duet. 21:15 Here the Lord even puts this statute into the Law of Moses as recorded in the bible how to deal with a problem associated with polygamy. Hence, how greater mandate can you have than that the Lord put regulations for polygamy in the statutes of the Law of Moses.
Exodus 21:10 Here the Lord says that if a man takes another wife, her food and raiment and wifely duties will not be diminished. Hence, how greater mandate can you have than that the Lord put regulations for polygamy in the statutes of the Law of Moses.
Judges 8:30 Here the hero (Gideon) of the Midianite war, a miraculous victory for Israel as God was with Gideon and his small army defeats the innumerable Midianites. What did Gideon do when he got home. Did he become their king, no, he stayed a humble commoner, but he married many wives and had a bunch of children. A hero of God, and a polygamous man? Must have got a mandate from God, don't you think?
1 Sam. 1:1-2 You have already seen this one, where one of the great prophets of the OT is born from a polygamous father and mother. Must have been a mandate from the Lord if a prophet of God came from it, don't you think?
1 Sam. 25:42-43 Now here is where David comes into the picture. Critics of Mormon polygamy always use David and Solomon as if they are the only 2 to practice polygamy and they were kings and did bad in the sight of God.But this is before David was king and he took 2 wives. And a more interesting question is: can we say that Jesus came from a polygamous family? Jesus came from the line of David, a polygamous man. Interesting mandate.
2 Sam. 12:7-9 David was given his wives by the Lord. A strong mandate, don't you think?
1 Chron. 4:5 Ashur was a commoner and had 2 wives.
1 Chron. 8:8 Shaharain was a commoner and had 2 wives.
2 Chron. 13 Abijah was a king of Judah. He slew Jeroboam, the king of Israel. The Lord was with Abijah, and he had 14 wives and the Lord blessed him. Mandate?
2 Chron. 22:11 Jehoiada was a priest of Judah.
2 Chron. 23:8 The Lord was with Jehoiada. Mandate?
2 Chron. 24:3 Jehoiada took 2 wives. So here you have a priest of the Aaronic Priesthood and we know God was with him that practiced polygamy. There could not be a stronger mandate from God.
So as you can see, prophets and kings and priests, and important men, heroes and common men had the right to practice plural marriage, and there were statutes in the Law of Moses to cover plural marriage situations.
What do you think?
Read this on plural marriage in the OT:
Plural marriage Scriptures in the OT
In order to say that you have to be completely ignorant of the OT 'mandate' for polygamy. This was not just a cultural man-made phenomena, it was a God-based doctrine.
Read every word of the following scriptures and it will prove to you that God was blessing this practice.
Gen. 16:3
Gen. 17:7-10
Gen. 28:10-16
These have to do with Abraham and Jacob. Read how the Lord is with them. Since they practiced polygamy, and the Lord was with them, it must mean that there was a mandate from the Lord to practice, otherwise the Lord would have mandated that they stop polygamy. He did not stop it so he mandated it was right at that time.
Duet. 21:15 Here the Lord even puts this statute into the Law of Moses as recorded in the bible how to deal with a problem associated with polygamy. Hence, how greater mandate can you have than that the Lord put regulations for polygamy in the statutes of the Law of Moses.
Exodus 21:10 Here the Lord says that if a man takes another wife, her food and raiment and wifely duties will not be diminished. Hence, how greater mandate can you have than that the Lord put regulations for polygamy in the statutes of the Law of Moses.
Judges 8:30 Here the hero (Gideon) of the Midianite war, a miraculous victory for Israel as God was with Gideon and his small army defeats the innumerable Midianites. What did Gideon do when he got home. Did he become their king, no, he stayed a humble commoner, but he married many wives and had a bunch of children. A hero of God, and a polygamous man? Must have got a mandate from God, don't you think?
1 Sam. 1:1-2 You have already seen this one, where one of the great prophets of the OT is born from a polygamous father and mother. Must have been a mandate from the Lord if a prophet of God came from it, don't you think?
1 Sam. 25:42-43 Now here is where David comes into the picture. Critics of Mormon polygamy always use David and Solomon as if they are the only 2 to practice polygamy and they were kings and did bad in the sight of God.But this is before David was king and he took 2 wives. And a more interesting question is: can we say that Jesus came from a polygamous family? Jesus came from the line of David, a polygamous man. Interesting mandate.
2 Sam. 12:7-9 David was given his wives by the Lord. A strong mandate, don't you think?
1 Chron. 4:5 Ashur was a commoner and had 2 wives.
1 Chron. 8:8 Shaharain was a commoner and had 2 wives.
2 Chron. 13 Abijah was a king of Judah. He slew Jeroboam, the king of Israel. The Lord was with Abijah, and he had 14 wives and the Lord blessed him. Mandate?
2 Chron. 22:11 Jehoiada was a priest of Judah.
2 Chron. 23:8 The Lord was with Jehoiada. Mandate?
2 Chron. 24:3 Jehoiada took 2 wives. So here you have a priest of the Aaronic Priesthood and we know God was with him that practiced polygamy. There could not be a stronger mandate from God.
So as you can see, prophets and kings and priests, and important men, heroes and common men had the right to practice plural marriage, and there were statutes in the Law of Moses to cover plural marriage situations.
What do you think?
The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints owns 2% of Florida, not 50%. Neither do you know how The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints is going to use the land. So just what is your point? I guess you are not worried about the 94 million cattle in the United States or people who need food. What about all of the wildlife and trees burned up with the 4 million acre fires in California? The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints is protecting the land in Florida.You're funny. The 250,000 citrus trees has nothing to do with the current purchase and yet you want to make a big deal about it as if it proves some point you are trying to make. The article only points out it may be used for agriculture. Given the current use of LDS land in the general area, the likely use is timber harvest, cattle, or some other non-citrus tree crops. As Dale pointed out, most citrus tree orchards are further south in Florida to avoid potential freezing.
Besides, even if it were to be used for citrus trees, you still have to cut down the forest to plant the trees, losing the native forest and all the wildlife it supports.
Your distractions and whataboutisms are noted.The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints owns 2% of Florida, not 50%. Neither do you know how The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints is going to use the land. So just what is your point? I guess you are not worried about the 94 million cattle in the United States or people who need food. What about all of the wildlife and trees burned up with the 4 million acre fires in California? The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints is protecting the land in Florida.
You haven't proven anything or justified your case.Your distractions and whataboutisms are noted.
You are the one who believes The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints is not taking care of their land in Florida properly. But I think you just want to argue even though you have nothing.What is it that you think I need to prove?
No, that's not what I said.You are the one who believes The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints is not taking care of their land in Florida properly. But I think you just want to argue even though you have nothing.
You didn't say this?: "I did read it. And nothing in there said they would specifically plant citrus trees. In your attempt to link a separate article with your "quarter million citrus trees", you conveniently skip over the 40,000 head of cattle. To manage that much cattle, forests have to be cleared. Combine that with the methane of the cows and now your church is a growing contributor to global warming."No, that's not what I said.
I did say that, but that's not what you characterized me as saying. The point was "now your church is a growing contributor to global warming."You didn't say this?: "I did read it. And nothing in there said they would specifically plant citrus trees. In your attempt to link a separate article with your "quarter million citrus trees", you conveniently skip over the 40,000 head of cattle. To manage that much cattle, forests have to be cleared. Combine that with the methane of the cows and now your church is a growing contributor to global warming."
This is clearly about how The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints is taking care of their property. And as I said I did not link a separate article, it was the same link. Here it is again:
LDS Church makes large timberland purchase in Florida Panhandle The article states: " Conservationists hope the church's company is mindful of the important northwest Florida watersheds it has acquired. The Conservation Fund's George Willson said he was pleased "to see that someone with a record of stewardship is buying it."
So the lds church is contributing to global warming by cutting down forest land?
So in your view if we stop growing food and raising cattle we can prevent global warming?I did say that, but that's not what you characterized me as saying. The point was "now your church is a growing contributor to global warming."
From your article: "It is our intent that this purchase will remain in agriculture for a long, long time.”
How do you turn timberland into useful agriculture land? You remove the timber! What happens when you remove thousands of acres of timber? You remove the natural habitat of numerous animals and vegetation. You also increase the contribution to global warming, regardless if you replant trees or plant new crops. It still has an effect.
Hence my original question in post #585:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?