Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

[J_C]

The flds suffered from lack of different blood. Most come from families that have intermarried time after time. They have distinct features that shows a lack of gene mixture. I cannot say that the sect originated after polygamy was abolished. I think that it came into play much later.

i am not expert in this, mind you, but back when the Warren Jeffs was in the news because he was on the FBI’s ten most wanted list, and on the run, finally picked up I believe in Las Vegas, there was quite a lot of news reporting on this sect.

The founder was i believe Warren’s father, and I seem to recall his first name being Rulon, or something like that.

These were people who could not abide the elimination of plural marriage in the LdS and so they broke away. bear in mind plural marriage did not fade away immediately after 1894. many polygamists ingnored the manifesto and Federal law. the Smoot affair proves that the matter remained a problem well into the 20th century. this doesn’t surprise, though, for how could large families be expected to break up?

The mormons have always been prone to gather amongst themselves rather than to intermingle any more than necessary with the gentiles. Apparently the flsd over time carried this to an extreme, and became very ingrown and inbred.

as for what you call “persecution” i believe the LDS brought most of this on themselves. They had some bad habits, one of which was an attitude that they were entitled to property owned by gentiles, and would ride out and take what they wanted. I’m sure this did not endear them to the gentiles at all.

 

[LaMar]

I don’t know, you tell me. However, we need to remember that a persecuted people are usually a people that have been through very traumatic experiences. And the mormons are no different in this respect as they began to settle Utah.

Between the trek westward and being abused by local populations, the lds at that time must have been just a little ‘sick’ in the mind by the time they arrived in Utah. Are they to blame for whatever may have happened when they settled Utah?

Well, imagine yourself to be among a small group of farmers in a newly settled place. Your parents and grandparents fought off indians, cleared the forest, and left you some land. You’re working the land and after many, many years it is finally starting to pay off.

Seemingly out of nowhere, a large, unified body of people who follow a charismatic leader show up and start a huge, efficient collective farm. The bottom drops out of crop prices and the newcomers take many of the non-agricultural jobs in construction and timber. Some of the newcomers start small businesses, guaranteed by the success of the agricultural settlement and selling goods at prices the independents can’t match.

Your children are going hungry. Your friends have been foreclosed upon and forced into poverty. The newcomers are issuing statements to the effect that God himself has decreed that they will own the entire area shortly, and unbelievers are unwelcome.

Now, tell me if it wouldn’t drive you to perhaps behave badly…

 

[J_C]

I don’t know, you tell me. However, we need to remember that a persecuted people are usually a people that have been through very traumatic experiences. And the mormons are no different in this respect as they began to settle Utah.

Between the trek westward and being abused by local populations, the lds at that time must have been just a little ‘sick’ in the mind by the time they arrived in Utah. Are they to blame for whatever may have happened when they settled Utah?

what becaem Utah was in the mid 1840s Mexico, and i believe the Mormonns knew this. they probably did not expect it to become U.S. territory, at least not almost as soon as they got there. though I can’t say for sure, I doubt there were many settlers in that area when they arrived. Probably mostly native Americans.

as for them being “sick in the mind” I have no doubt about that. I believe (personl opoinion based on some observation) that people who gravitate to odd sects are often religious basket cases to begin with. now it probablyu is true that many of the English and other European immigarnats, such as John Taylor, were using the LdS as a support network to enable their leaving the mother countries. so I am not saying they were all nut cases, not at all, and besides who am I to say. I only make the observation that odd people gravitate to odd enterprises, and by any measure the mormonn sect in 1845 was an odd enterpriese.

 

[grandfather]

I don’t know, you tell me. However, we need to remember that a persecuted people are usually a people that have been through very traumatic experiences. And the mormons are no different in this respect as they began to settle Utah.

Between the trek westward and being abused by local populations, the lds at that time must have been just a little ‘sick’ in the mind by the time they arrived in Utah. Are they to blame for whatever may have happened when they settled Utah?

There is a news article in the archives of the Corvallis Gazette Times when Mormons first came to town in the 1800s. It says one of their preachers preached in a home to a gathering of women and got them aroused over the issue of polygamy tying it to eternal salvation. The preacher had a few wives and was looking for additional candidates. What beeter way to evaluate them than naked? They all took off their close and writhed around on the floor in a frenzy. The menfolk of the town did not look kindly on the news of this and the preacher’s welcome in town wore out. I think if I recall reading the article correctly (from the archives) that he might have been tarred and feathered and run out of town. I suppose Mormons would consider this persecution. Today it would be called intolerance. There are two Mormon churches in the town today. I guess they regained their welcome when they renounced polygamy and decided to keep their clothes on in their gatherings, at least to my knowledge.

It is good to keep in mind that all of these folks have immortal souls and God loves them and in charity they need to be evangelized.

 

[MelanieAnne]

While these little anecdotes may be entertaining for some, aren’t we getting a little off-topic here?

 

[Chuck_H]

While these little anecdotes may be entertaining for some, aren’t we getting a little off-topic here?

If anyone is interested, I am providing a link to the actual affidavit filed with the court in San Angelo,TX. It may clear up some confusions and will give information on why the court delivered all of the children into foster care.

web.gosanangelo.com/pdf/affidavit.pdf

 

[grandfather]

While these little anecdotes may be entertaining for some, aren’t we getting a little off-topic here?

The topic seems to be driven by an emotional reaction caused by the behavior of members of a religious cult. They are all bad people for all the reasons given, and we should do this and that to them, we being the civil government. Leaving emotions aside there are questions of law that are relevant to the rights of the government and rights of the accused. The word abuse is what inflames emothions. People with power abuse those who are taken advantage of. The government is powerful and citizens are weak. The only thing that keeps citizens from being abused by the government is the restraint that is put on government powers, like unreasonable search and siezure, the right of habeous corpus, forcing self incrimination, etc. Sometimes this means that people who do bad things get away with it. For people to be held in detention they must be charged with a crime. The government can not arrest people without some evidence of a crime. The government can not arrest and hold people indefitnitely they suspect committed crimes while they dig around looking for evidence. These are general principles. They apply to everyone, even people we do not like and whose behavior we may abhor. Take the specifics that enflame emotions out of the story and see if the government has violated the restraints that are supposed to limit its power. That is from the civil law point of view. From the theological perspective we are dealing with creatures with immortal souls and God commands us to try to help them find truth.

 

[majick275]

I don’t know, you tell me. However, we need to remember that a persecuted people are usually a people that have been through very traumatic experiences. And the mormons are no different in this respect as they began to settle Utah.

Between the trek westward and being abused by local populations, the lds at that time must have been just a little ‘sick’ in the mind by the time they arrived in Utah. Are they to blame for whatever may have happened when they settled Utah?

why skip ahead to Utah? what did the LDS do to the folks in Kirtland? Nauvoo? and who was really doing the “persecuting”? mostly mormons or former mormons who felt victimized by the LDs church. and yes they were still responsible for their actions in Utah. don’t forget that many of the utah mormons came from overseas missions and hadn’t gone through any of these earlier situations.

 

[fatima1917]

The topic seems to be driven by an emotional reaction caused by the behavior of members of a religious cult. They are all bad people for all the reasons given, and we should do this and that to them, we being the civil government. Leaving emotions aside there are questions of law that are relevant to the rights of the government and rights of the accused. The word abuse is what inflames emothions. People with power abuse those who are taken advantage of. The government is powerful and citizens are weak. The only thing that keeps citizens from being abused by the government is the restraint that is put on government powers, like unreasonable search and siezure, the right of habeous corpus, forcing self incrimination, etc. Sometimes this means that people who do bad things get away with it. For people to be held in detention they must be charged with a crime. The government can not arrest people without some evidence of a crime. The government can not arrest and hold people indefitnitely they suspect committed crimes while they dig around looking for evidence. These are general principles. They apply to everyone, even people we do not like and whose behavior we may abhor. Take the specifics that enflame emotions out of the story and see if the government has violated the restraints that are supposed to limit its power. That is from the civil law point of view. From the theological perspective we are dealing with creatures with immortal souls and God commands us to try to help them find truth.

So are you stating that the state of Texas is suppose to stand aside and let this generalized abuse to continue to occur until everything every “i” and “t” is doted and crossed?

 

[MelanieAnne]

So are you stating that the state of Texas is suppose to stand aside and let this generalized abuse to continue to occur until everything every “i” and “t” is doted and crossed?

That’s the right question.

Apparently some people do not understand the lawful process that comes into play when it comes to child abuse, which is what this is all about, nor do they understand such things as “probable cause”, or what happens when Child Protective Services is called in to investigate a problem.

The fact is that the law allows for potentially abused children to be separated by their alleged abusers until the investigation is completed. The reason for this is to protect the innocent.

 

[grandfather]

So are you stating that the state of Texas is suppose to stand aside and let this generalized abuse to continue to occur until everything every “i” and “t” is doted and crossed?

The state has to obey its own laws. It has nothing to do with dotting i-s and crossing t-s. The government can not arrest you and hold you unless you are charged with a crime. It can not arrest every family in your parish and take your children, because it is rumored that some families or the priest is involved in child abuse or some other crime. The state needs evidence of a crime and evidence that you committed it. Then it can arrest you, but not everyone who lives in your neighborhood. If it can not produce this evidence it can not put you or keep you in jail. In order to keep you detained it must immediately produce evidence of a crime, the reason you are arrested. It can not round up hundreds of people and hold them over rumors that some of them they did bad things without charging them with a crime. What the state did in TX is an outrageous violation of law. No charges were filed and hundreds were detained. It is all based on rumor. The austensible reason for the raid was a phoney phone call. Someone could make a phone call that you killed your brother and the police raid yuor home and sieze your family and it is all a lie. They know the call was a lie and they are detaining hundreds who have not been charged with any crime. The people are still in custody. This is tyranny. It is abuse of power. It is a violation of law. If the state will not obey its own laws, why should its citizens? It does not matter of what is alleged that these people do we do not like. That is irrelevant. Show the crime. It is innuendo and nothing more. I do not like what these people do under the pretext of religion any more than you do. I think they are deceived and agree they probably do evil things. That does not mean the state has the right to do what it did.

 

[MelanieAnne]

The state has to obey its own laws. It has nothing to do with dotting i-s and crossing t-s. The government can not arrest you and hold you unless you are charged with a crime. It can not arrest every family in your parish and take your children, because it is rumored that some families or the priest is involved in child abuse or some other crime. The state needs evidence of a crime and evidence that you committed it. Then it can arrest you, but not everyone who lives in your neighborhood. If it can not produce this evidence it can not put you or keep you in jail. In order to keep you detained it must immediately produce evidence of a crime, the reason you are arrested. It can not round up hundreds of people and hold them over rumors that some of them they did bad things without charging them with a crime. What the state did in TX is an outrageous violation of law. No charges were filed and hundreds were detained. It is all based on rumor. The austensible reason for the raid was a phoney phone call. Someone could make a phone call that you killed your brother and the police raid yuor home and sieze your family and it is all a lie. They know the call was a lie and they are detaining hundreds who have not been charged with any crime. The people are still in custody. This is tyranny. It is abuse of power. It is a violation of law. If the state will not obey its own laws, why should its citizens? It does not matter of what is alleged that these people do we do not like. That is irrelevant. Show the crime. It is innuendo and nothing more. I do not like what these people do under the pretext of religion any more than you do. I think they are deceived and agree they probably do evil things. That does not mean the state has the right to do what it did.

Grandfather, would you do us all, including yourself, a favor and put some paragraphs in? All it takes is the flick of the “enter” key… And it makes your posts far more readable. Otherwise what you write comes across as “stream of consciousness” and at least some people will not read it.

Contrary to what you have written, laws concerning child protection DO ALLOW for the removal of potentially abused children to be removed from the presence of the potential abusers until the investigation is complete. This is to protect the innocent. That you may not agree with the law changes nothing. That is the law. This is pretty much how child protection laws are everywhere in this country.

Just because YOU don’t know about evidence doesn’t mean there isn’t any. According to news reports, the government had an informant within the cult. (Not the person making the phone call, someone else.) While they are assembling their case, it is not unusual for the government to withhold information from the news media. This is normal. Remember the old maxim “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.

 

[grandfather]

Grandfather, would you do us all, including yourself, a favor and put some paragraphs in? All it takes is the flick of the “enter” key… And it makes your posts far more readable. Otherwise what you write comes across as “stream of consciousness” and at least some people will not read it.

 

[MelanieAnne]

So if I called the police tonight and told them that I heard that there was child abuse going on in your home they could invade your home and take your kids and keep them indefinitely while they investigate.

Actually, yes. They could take them away, if they could find them. But not indefinitely, only while they investigated. In my particular case, as in many others, the police would also have the right to use their best judgment when they arrived and make a determination before they made a referral to Child Protective Services. So go ahead and call the Police if you feel the need. When the police arrive and the youngest member of the house is 4 legged (as are all except me that live here) the police might have something to say to YOU.

Bottom line: Consider the fact that the Police take false reports seriously too.

The reason given for the raid was not information from an informant or anything other than a call from a female who claimed to be underage and abused.

Those that claim that we all should withhold judgment until all the facts are in need to follow their own advice! There was an informant inside the cult, someone other than the caller, according to recent news reports. After Waco, do you think Texas would take any chances?

No problem there. They can withhold anything they wish as long as they wish. Before they go about assmbling their case while hundreds are in custody they need to charge somebody with a crime or release them. There may have been serious crimes committed in this place. Charge, try, convict and sentence the guilty parties.

You need to educate yourself on the process of the law. “Perry Mason” may not be the best place to start. Try your local courthouse.

In every city in America the government funds Planned Parenthood clinics. There they give out free birth control to underage girls or boys every day. They will assist underage girls to get abortions. All of this is done without the knowledge of the girl’s families. If they have evidence that underage girls are having sex with old men they keep it secret. This is a real threat to many thousands of children and society. The government sanctions and pays for it. It is not in a remote place, but in every city.

In the face of this, proportionally, getting worked up about what a few nuts in a TX commune do is like panicking over setting mousetraps in the basement when your livingroom and kitchen are on fire.

There’s a big huge difference and you are trying to make a tortuous moral equivalency that just doesn’t work. One involves a confused misguided teenager seeking a way out of a problem or a way to have illicit sex and avoid a problem, while the other (the cult) involves middle aged men preying on young girls in order to RAPE them in the name of God. If you are a Grandfather as your name implies, doesn’t it offend you that someone would think it was OK to rape your granddaughter and call it a religious duty?

I’m sorry you can’t see the difference between a silly young girl and a dirty old man, but there is a big one.

 

[why_me]

So are you stating that the state of Texas is suppose to stand aside and let this generalized abuse to continue to occur until everything every “i” and “t” is doted and crossed?

The reason for the detention was a phoney phone call. Nothing to dot there. Grandfather is making a good case.

 

[why_me]

Well, imagine yourself to be among a small group of farmers in a newly settled place. Your parents and grandparents fought off indians, cleared the forest, and left you some land. You’re working the land and after many, many years it is finally starting to pay off.

Now, tell me if it wouldn’t drive you to perhaps behave badly…

Oh yes, LaMar, it would drive me to murder lds women and children. The frontier was filled with intolerent folks who were not the most open minded and best educated individuals. Anything that was different was suspect. Heck, the indians were not just driven off but experienced wholesale genocide by these same people (farmers). The mormon experience of persecution is a blight on American history.

 

[why_me]

There is a news article in the archives of the Corvallis Gazette Times when Mormons first came to town in the 1800s. It says one of their preachers preached in a home to a gathering of women and got them aroused over the issue of polygamy tying it to eternal salvation. The preacher had a few wives and was looking for additional candidates. What beeter way to evaluate them than naked? They all took off their close and writhed around on the floor in a frenzy. The menfolk of the town did not look kindly on the news of this and the preacher’s welcome in town wore out. I think if I recall reading the article correctly (from the archives) that he might have been tarred and feathered and run out of town. I suppose Mormons would consider this persecution. Today it would be called intolerance. There are two Mormon churches in the town today. I guess they regained their welcome when they renounced polygamy and decided to keep their clothes on in their gatherings, at least to my knowledge.

It is good to keep in mind that all of these folks have immortal souls and God loves them and in charity they need to be evangelized.

Well, the problem here of course, is whether or not it was true. I tend to doubt it. But it does make a good story to arouse the locals against the lds population. However, maybe I misunderstood. The preacher may not have been a mormon but somehow got tied into the story. Can you clarify?

 

[fatima1917]

The reason for the detention was a phoney phone call. Nothing to dot there. Grandfather is making a good case.

You sir are prejudiced because it involves mormons and you are a mormon.

Systemic abuse of 14, 15, and 16 year old girls by men in their 40’s and 50’s by a so called religion calls for drastic action. Rape is rape and no matter how many offuscating words or phrases you and grandfather put out does not change the fact.

Think about what Texas CPS found on the conpound grounds. They walked in there and found several girl children pregnant!!! and they could not find out who the men were who impregnated them (since they could not be married under state law). What were they suppose to do. According to you; nothing!!! Well in the state where I live they take them away and then go through the legal process of determining what to do while the children are in a safe environment. This is the same thing that is going on in Texas.

 

[J_C]

Well, the problem here of course, is whether or not it was true. I tend to doubt it. But it does make a good story to arouse the locals against the lds population. However, maybe I misunderstood. The preacher may not have been a mormon but somehow got tied into the story. Can you clarify?

I’d like to read the original story rather than a synopsis. it certainly is an odd story. we usually associate people of that era as being a lot more modest than this story suggests these ladies were, in being willing to disrobe in front of a stranger. on the other hand, people are just people, always have been and always will be in whatever age they are born into. men and women were having secxual encounters then, as now.

 

[majick275]

Oh yes, LaMar, it would drive me to murder lds women and children. The frontier was filled with intolerent folks who were not the most open minded and best educated individuals. Anything that was different was suspect. Heck, the indians were not just driven off but experienced wholesale genocide by these same people (farmers). The mormon experience of persecution is a blight on American history.

let’s stop with the myth of mormon persecution. the worst things done to mormons in the early days were done by mormons. next are the things done in retaliation for what the mormons did. finally you get a few cases where scared people decided to attack mormons preemptively. all of this is because of Joseph Smith being such a blatantly dishonest, immoral tyrant trying to build up his own kingdom…kind of like warren jeffs…I guess it’s no wonder then that the mormons are so interested in defending the FLDS. BTW whyme, I see your posts on MADB where the mormons are discussing how the creeds are such an abomination. if there was any doubt about you being a anticatholic mormon you have certainly cleared that up. .