Faith can move mountains ... and destroy banks
David_G
Mormons who banked on doomsday find the debt collector at the door
By David Usborne
11 December 2004
If the 9,000 members of a polygamous Mormon sect in south-west Utah felt
comfortable borrowing from their local bank like there was no tomorrow, it
was because, in their minds, that was precisely the case. The world, they
had been told, was coming to an end.
The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gladly used
high-interest funds to finance suspect business ventures. There was the
water melon farm on which not a single water melon was planted, and plans to
convert old military barracks into homes fell through when they found lead
paint and asbestos inside. Now, though, the tap has been turned off. After
years of obliging the sect, the local Bank of Ephraim has been forced to
shut down after state regulators found it could no longer handle all the
loans it had extended.
It was only after the crackdown in June that the bank's president, Keith
Church, discovered the truth. Several years ago, the sect, led by a recluse
named Warren Jeffs, rumoured to have 70 wives, made members take an oath to
drain the bank as fast as possible because doomsday, just around the corner,
would see the world and its financial system collapse.
How the Bank of Ephraim, the community's only financial institution, allowed
itself to get in so deep is now the subject of several investigations. When
closed, it had loans out to the sect valued at about $18m (£9.4m), or
roughly 90 per cent of its total loan portfolio.
Mr Church blames the state regulators. He claims that for years they turned
a blind eye and only began moving against the sect as part of a state-wide
effort to hunt down polygamists in the run-up to the 2002 Salt Lake City
Winter Olympics.
What the sect's leader may have to say about the debacle is anyone's guess.
Recent reports suggest that Mr Jeffs has left the area for a 1,600-acre
compound El Dorado, Texas. Local officials predict an exodus of the flock
from Utah.
Rectagon
Surely now that same sex marriages are legal (probably) polygamous
marriages will also become accepted.
These guys have a branch in BC too. :(
Joell
Peter
news:QJMud.58878$6f6.50244@edtnps89...
I see little objection if someone else wants to have several wives. Remember
multiple wives and/or concubines is consistent with several of the word's great
religionsand is culturally accepted in many parts of the world. Do we have a
right to dictate our beliefs to others?
--
Peter
By the time you swear you're his,
Shivering and sighing,
And he vows his passion is
Infinite, undying -
Lady, make a note of this:
One of you is lying.
-Dorothy Parker-
David_G
"Peter" <peterne...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:321onhF...@individual.net...
Peter, we agree on something else! That's wonderful!
"Marriage" - whatever name you wish to call it ('matrimony', 'union',
'permanent partnership', 'covenant' etc) - is the result of a purely private
decision taken by two (or more) individuals with the capacity to decide, who
wish to formalise a relationship to cohabit with/without the desire to
reproduce, for mutual support and defence etc etc..... which created
obligations, like any other contract, and is publicly acknowledged etc..
That is might be 'sacramentalised' or given he status of something
'spiritual', or 'otherworldly' or 'magical' is up to the parties to the
contract themselves, but does not affect the nature of it.
So I think we agree, Peter. That's a good sign in this season of good cheer,
warm thoughts and Father Xmasses.
Peter
news:3230gtF...@individual.net...
> > I see little objection if someone else wants to have several wives.
> > Remember
> > multiple wives and/or concubines is consistent with several of the word's
> > great
> > religionsand is culturally accepted in many parts of the world. Do we have
> > a
> > right to dictate our beliefs to others?
>
> Peter, we agree on something else! That's wonderful!
> "Marriage" - whatever name you wish to call it ('matrimony', 'union',
> 'permanent partnership', 'covenant' etc) - is the result of a purely private
> decision taken by two (or more) individuals with the capacity to decide, who
> wish to formalise a relationship to cohabit with/without the desire to
> reproduce, for mutual support and defence etc etc..... which created
> obligations, like any other contract, and is publicly acknowledged etc..
>
> That is might be 'sacramentalised' or given he status of something
> 'spiritual', or 'otherworldly' or 'magical' is up to the parties to the
> contract themselves, but does not affect the nature of it.
>
I recently had a discussion about the nature of extra-marital relatinships. I
have been unable to find much authentic information that suports my theory that
proscriptions against "promiscuity" were a result of folks putting the pursuit
of pleasure ahead of properly planting the crops, (metphoricaly speaking, of
course.)
IOW when the farmer dallied with his neighbor's daughter instead of doing his
work, everybody suffered. This concept was extended to put the fear of G-d in
those that did this and later extended by organized religions to exert control.
(Guilt and fear are marveleous pshchylogical controllers.)
What lends some credence to my theory is that under ancient Judiac law, adultery
defined as a man havig sex with a married women. A married man having sex
outside of marriage, is not condemned. e.g. David's sin was having Bathsheeba's
husband killed. Had Bathsheeba not been married, it would have been OK.
--
Peter
You Can't Very Well Fight a War
While You're Having an Orgasm