Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

[Zooey]

The women posting here seem to be mostly concerned with the women. How willingly they enter into these marriages. Of course, that’s a legitimate question as they don’t seem to have much of an alternative. But what about the young men? Does no one care about the young men? The “lost boys”?

Yes, we care. But as sad as their state is, at least they are out of the cult.
The women are still under its control.

Of course they aren’t, to complain is to speak against God Himself. Speaking against the authority means exactly that, and the result of not having absolute obedience is excommunication from the religion. In this cult excommunication means removal from your home, your family, and the community.

A very fearful prospect, as, this means leaving your children behind and then what? A girl’s education ends at the 8th grade and these women have no skills whatsoever to survive outside of their cult.

These people own nothing, everything is owned by their “church”. When anyone in this group is kicked out, they have absolutely nothing.

Precisely. These poor women are so brainwwashed that they don’t even realize how bad off they are.

You don’t know what happened. The Texas law enforcement had an informant within this group for years.

Exactly!! That is the reason that the authorities went in. Not because of some anonymous woman who made a phone
call. The police received word from their informant, that they had to act at this time.

And yes, a child’s call for help should be acted on. It is the law that there is probable cause.

Absolutely!!

The police show up and don’t find the person who made a phone call, but they find evidence of other abuses in your home. Yes, they are going to act on that. It isn’t like the police are going to say, oh, there is evidence that this other kid is in danger, but it isn’t the one who made the phone call. Have a nice day!

They had better act on it!! There have been several people who have disappeared into the FLDS, who had sought help, & were denied it. They were returned to their abusers…and never seen by anyone outside the FLDS after that. (Google “Ruby Jessop”. Her sister escaped; Ruby was returned & no one knows where she is, or what has been done to her. )

 

[MelanieAnne]

I believe you missed the point of my post, which is this–the LDS are embarrassed by polygamy. It’s a wound that won’t go away. They don’t like to talk about it with non-members, and they are constantly trying to distance themselves from it whenever it come up in the news. Unfortunately for them, the FLDS keep the polygamy issue on the forefront. The FLDS practice is like a window into LDS history, and it’s not something the LDS want on the front page and on TV. I understand your point about a current prophet trumping a former one, which is true, but my point is that the polygamy issue will never go away for the LDS (even though they offcially ended it in 1890) as long as they uphold Section 132 in the D&C as divinely inspired. But they can’t reject Section 132 without rejecting Joseph Smith, so therein lies the conundrum.

I don’t believe the LDS are embarrassed about polygamy, they just don’t like being confused with organizations that are considered wacky cults. LDS want to be considered normal, mainstream, they don’t want to be considered “fringe”.

The problem for the LDS is that polygamy is still their doctrine, even today, it’s just that, as they put it, it has been “taken from the earth”. But they fully expect polygamy to be the “norm” in the Celestial Kingdom (i.e., heaven). The reason that this issue will never go away for the LDS is because they still believe in it, just not during this lifetime. That’s why you don’t see many LDS coming down hard on the issue of polygamy.

 

[Chuck_H]

I hate to split hairs here, but our Old Testament also supports polygamy and never is there a definate point in time in the Bible where God says “Thou shalt only have one wife!”. If I’m not mistaken, Jesus never clearly addresses polygamy, although admittingly he refers to marriage in terms of one wife/one husband.

So, if a sect is in entrenched in Scripture, probably some basis could be argued in support of polygamy. It’s my understanding that it gradually died out over time.

I’m not saying I support it at all, but bringing up a debatable point.

Polygamy/polyandry applies when there is demonstrable endangerment of off spring viability dependent on environmental conditions. Few males, multiple females versus many males required and fewer females as a bottleneck. Neither exists today in the western US so the existence of polygamy is not required. A religious requirement is not sufficient under current conditions. (biologically speaking).

 

[lovesMary]

Polygamy/polyandry applies when there is demonstrable endangerment of off spring viability dependent on environmental conditions. Few males, multiple females versus many males required and fewer females as a bottleneck. Neither exists today in the western US so the existence of polygamy is not required. A religious requirement is not sufficient under current conditions. (biologically speaking).

The selfsame argument can also be made against “multiply and fill the Earth”, and in favour of population control. Humans appear to have accomplish that edict, and in fact many argue that the success of that accomplishment is a threat to our very existance.

 

[MaryIsOurMother]

I live in a suburb of Salt Lake City so have the privelege of debating with Mormons almost daily. In 1998, the late President Gordon B. Hinckley said, " The church has nothing whatever to do with practicing polygamy…If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are EXCOMMUNICATED,the most serious penalty the church can impose."
One of my favorite questions is why they belong to a church whose founding prophet would be EXCOMMUNICATED ! In addition they would also have to consider Jesus a “jack-Mormon” since He turned water into wine.

 

[rmcmullan]

This is the latest:

When the DNA sampling is completed, state officials will begin to relocate some of the 416 children from the coliseum and will separate the children younger than 4 years from adult mothers.

I know the state officials have very few options here but I wonder where they get the authority to do this? Is this really serving the common good? That’s probably a very difficult question but I am surprised the judge in charge of this case is so sure what she is doing is the right thing.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I live in a suburb of Salt Lake City so have the privelege of debating with Mormons almost daily. In 1998, the late President Gordon B. Hinckley said, " The church has nothing whatever to do with practicing polygamy…If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are EXCOMMUNICATED,the most serious penalty the church can impose."
One of my favorite questions is why they belong to a church whose founding prophet would be EXCOMMUNICATED ! In addition they would also have to consider Jesus a “jack-Mormon” since He turned water into wine.

While that is true that they reject the practice today, LDS Doctrine says that polygamy will be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom (Heaven). It is still part of LDS doctrine, it’s just that the practice has been suspended on the earth.

 

[Jerusha]

Polygamy/polyandry applies when there is demonstrable endangerment of off spring viability dependent on environmental conditions. Few males, multiple females versus many males required and fewer females as a bottleneck. Neither exists today in the western US so the existence of polygamy is not required. A religious requirement is not sufficient under current conditions. (biologically speaking).

For example, after a serious war in which many of the men have been killed.

Another example would be, perhaps set during famine time in Ireland. What if the husband of a woman with children died, and her sister and brother-in-law were the only people in the village who were in a position to take her in? The alternative would be for them to starve to death?

 

[MelanieAnne]

This is the latest:

I know the state officials have very few options here but I wonder where they get the authority to do this? Is this really serving the common good? That’s probably a very difficult question but I am surprised the judge in charge of this case is so sure what she is doing is the right thing.

In child abuse cases (and despite all the discussion about polygamy, this case is principally about child abuse) the child is removed from the allegedly abusive situation while the investigation is completed. Every attempt is made to keep brothers and sisters together. The situation with this cult makes adhering to the brother-sister policy very difficult, but that would be one reason for DNA tests. This has been reported by journalists.

Another reason for DNA tests would be to establish the identity of the sexual predator who impregnated an underage girl. Any male member of the cult who had a sexual relationship with a girl under 16 has committed statutory rape by Texas state law. Since they have in custody girls that fit that description, and the condition of the girls is prima facie evidence that a crime has been committed, it’s possible that they would do DNA tests to determine who the father is.

 

[PaulDupre]

For example, after a serious war in which many of the men have been killed.

Another example would be, perhaps set during famine time in Ireland. What if the husband of a woman with children died, and her sister and brother-in-law were the only people in the village who were in a position to take her in? The alternative would be for them to starve to death?

Taking someone into your home out of the goodness of your heart has been Christian practice for 2000 years. It should not come with sexual demands attached.

Paul

 

[Jerusha]

Taking someone into your home out of the goodness of your heart has been Christian practice for 2000 years. It should not come with sexual demands attached.

Paul

You have no idea how much I appreciate that comment.

 

[Chuck_H]

For example, after a serious war in which many of the men have been killed.

Another example would be, perhaps set during famine time in Ireland. What if the husband of a woman with children died, and her sister and brother-in-law were the only people in the village who were in a position to take her in? The alternative would be for them to starve to death?

Neither case would be extreme enough. In the latter case (no pun intended), most of us have had a relative live with us for a while. It does not require marriage. In the former, increasing family size in a famine situation is courting disaster.
The most common useful situations have been island dwellers where gene mixing by polygamy or polyandry had some genetic benefit. The most common misuse was seen in the middle east where children became workers for a common patriarch. This is the most likely model for the existing situation in Texas.

 

[rmcmullan]

Any male member of the cult who had a sexual relationship with a girl under 16 has committed statutory rape by Texas state law.

MelanieAnne, thanks for your explanations. A couple of more questions: in statutory rape, there is no consideration of consent, correct? Also, will Texas have a problem prosecuting if they can’t prove it happened in Texas? I thought many of these FLDS were imported from UT/AZ?

 

[MelanieAnne]

MelanieAnne, thanks for your explanations. A couple of more questions: in statutory rape, there is no consideration of consent, correct? Also, will Texas have a problem prosecuting if they can’t prove it happened in Texas? I thought many of these FLDS were imported from UT/AZ?

I can’t answer your questions about locations as I have no information about that. I have read, however, that the State of Texas had an informant within the cult. This may serve to gainsay any efforts the cult may make in alleging that these crimes did not take place in Texas. If the alleged crimes purportedly took place in either Utah or Arizona, I would think that the facts of the events would need to be proven and then you would look to State Law for those States.

Statutory rape, by definition, involves no consent. Basically, the law provides that below a certain age a child is not old enough/considered mature enough to give informed consent. Therefore in statutory rape cases, the assumption is that there was no consent and a rape has taken place. In the state of Texas, these young girls who are pregnant will be assumed to have been raped.

In addition, the State of Texas has a law that a child under the age of 16 may not marry, even with the permission of their parents. So this cult will not be able to argue that the alleged rapes were not rapes due to the existence of a marital relationship.

 

[grandfather]

I believe you missed the point of my post, which is this–the LDS are embarrassed by polygamy. It’s a wound that won’t go away. They don’t like to talk about it with non-members, and they are constantly trying to distance themselves from it whenever it come up in the news. Unfortunately for them, the FLDS keep the polygamy issue on the forefront. The FLDS practice is like a window into LDS history, and it’s not something the LDS want on the front page and on TV. I understand your point about a current prophet trumping a former one, which is true, but my point is that the polygamy issue will never go away for the LDS (even though they offcially ended it in 1890) as long as they uphold Section 132 in the D&C as divinely inspired. But they can’t reject Section 132 without rejecting Joseph Smith, so therein lies the conundrum.

Right!

 

[why_me]

This is the latest:

I know the state officials have very few options here but I wonder where they get the authority to do this? Is this really serving the common good? That’s probably a very difficult question but I am surprised the judge in charge of this case is so sure what she is doing is the right thing.

I will bet two cents that the judge is a bigot and a christian who actually believes that she is serving god in what she is doing. But in the end, she will commit trauma in the lives of many kids for many years to come. It will be a blight on the state of texas. This story will resurface in 30 years when these kids become adults.

 

[why_me]

I believe you missed the point of my post, which is this–the LDS are embarrassed by polygamy. It’s a wound that won’t go away. They don’t like to talk about it with non-members, and they are constantly trying to distance themselves from it whenever it come up in the news. Unfortunately for them, the FLDS keep the polygamy issue on the forefront. The FLDS practice is like a window into LDS history, and it’s not something the LDS want on the front page and on TV. I understand your point about a current prophet trumping a former one, which is true, but my point is that the polygamy issue will never go away for the LDS (even though they offcially ended it in 1890) as long as they uphold Section 132 in the D&C as divinely inspired. But they can’t reject Section 132 without rejecting Joseph Smith, so therein lies the conundrum.

The lds are not embarrassed by polygamy. In fact, they see it as part of their church history. However, since it is no longer practiced they do not like to be mixed up with polygamous sects.

The lds do not want the polygamy issue to go away. It is a part of their history. But they do not like to be confused with such groups. And they see nothing wrong with section 132 of the D & C. It is a part of the canon of the lds church.

 

[Chuck_H]

I will bet two cents that the judge is a bigot and a christian who actually believes that she is serving god in what she is doing. But in the end, she will commit trauma in the lives of many kids for many years to come. It will be a blight on the state of texas. This story will resurface in 30 years when these kids become adults.

I doubt it. Any judge handling that case knows over 300 lawyers are watching every move. The state must have put up some pretty convincing evidence to make her rule as she did. That situation would be extremely dangerous for a judicial bigot or a religious zealot to make incautious moves or decisions.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I will bet two cents that the judge is a bigot and a christian who actually believes that she is serving god in what she is doing. But in the end, she will commit trauma in the lives of many kids for many years to come. It will be a blight on the state of texas. This story will resurface in 30 years when these kids become adults.

Wow, you’re taking such a risk! 2 Cents!!

I don’t suppose you have anything to support that very serious accusation? If the judge is that biased, she should recuse herself, so surely you have some factual basis for that statement? No? Just your 2 cents? What?

The irony here is just stunning. It’s remarkable how “understanding” some people can be about dirty old men raping children in the name of God ~ within the confines of the building they consider a “temple” no less ~ but then they can, at the same time, perhaps speculate so scathingly on a judge who is facing a very difficult job and doing the best they can under extreme circumstances. Of course that can’t be evidence of bias can it?

 

[a_cermak]

Marriage doesn’t remove or mitigate the fact of rape. If a man marries a woman who is 14, in a state or nation where that is legal, and consummates his marriage in the state of Texas, then he has committed statutory rape. In this case of the Yearning for Zion ranch, these are not legal marriages so should have no legal standing of any kind. So, from what I have read so far, some men had sex with underaged women. That is a violation of Texas law period. That law is generic, it applies to all residents of Texas.

It applies to the 20 year old in Houston who is having sex with the 15 year old girl. If the authorities hear of it and have evidence to prosecute it then they ought to do so. It applies to members of the Yearning for Zion ranch and it applies to every other case.

And the FLDS theology does not even require statutory rape. They could have a wedding for any age and then wait to consummate the marriage until the woman is of age. Or they could have a betrothal at any age and then have the marriage occur after the woman is of legal age. I believe that is how the Amish and Orthodox Jews do it.