Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

[lovesMary]

I don’t see how the current economic realities can be considered to be actively squelching religious expression and I hardly think businesses are only run by religious or political conservatives.

Unfortunately, the after church crowd is a major part of the clientel at grocery stores and restaurants on Sunday, including many different sects and denominations from liberal to conservvative. The loss of the sense of a Sabbath day is unfortunate, but I wouldn’t blame it exclusively on political conservatives.

What I was specifically talking about is the removal of all forms of prayer or religious expression from any public forum that is remotely connected with the government. This interpretation of the constitution is strongly promoted by Secular, anti-Christian groups such as the ACLU, that have a foundational antipathy towards Christianity, and will use any legal trick to undermine it in America.

 

[rmcmullan]

MelanieAnne, perhaps what Texas law enforcement should have done is just what the feds did at Waco–torch the place and kill most of the people. That certainly would have ended all THE ABUSE!! My point? Oh, that there’s a cost to everything. Sure that would have trampled their rights to the ground but taking newborn babies away from their mothers is extreme too.

Some of the women have been married before they should have been. Granted. No one is disputing that but are we really breaking up families, holding people and sending children off to foster homes because of that? I’m not saying that’s not illegal but how about som sense of proportion here? As grandfather pointed out, it’s fairly common in America and rarely presecuted. No to mention the age of consent in some states and countries is 14 and so the line of legality is with some degree arbitrary.

 

[MelanieAnne]

MelanieAnne, perhaps what Texas law enforcement should have done is just what the feds did at Waco–torch the place and kill most of the people. That certainly would have ended all THE ABUSE!!

What a disgusting suggestion. Advocating murder?

Trying to devalue or denigrate the real issue by making absurd, extreme suggestions and analogies is unproductive. Trivializing the issue is an insult to the innocent. It’s a form of supporting the right of the abusers to continue to abuse.

I choose to no longer read the postings of those who tolerate the rape of children, so I will make the appropriate update to my ignore list.

 

[lovesMary]

I choose to no longer read the postings of those who tolerate the rape of children, so I will make the appropriate update to my ignore list.

There is something overly melodramtic in your statement, from my point of view, that borders on comical actually.

Do people on this thread tolerate rape of children? All who do so, raise their hands.

 

[Righteousone]

I heard on the news that now the boys are being investigated b/c of allegations that they too were raped by the FLDS.

 

[rmcmullan]

We have a tradition in this country about being innocent until proven guilty. Occasionally, allegations and rumors are often put out in advance of the facts for political purposes.

sltrib.com/ci_9106612?IADID

You’ll see that there’s two sides of every story. The FLDS strongly refute such accusations and are concerned about “being maligned!”

MelanieAnne was far too anxious to hang them all from a tree, especially the men. The men are always the bad guys. I’m not saying that they’re innocent–I’m saying I don’t know and no one should be jumping to conclusions because of an inbred prejudice.

 

[rmcmullan]

One thing I want to point out about MelanieAnne’s extreme language and melodrama–there’s a big difference between statutory rape and rape. In statutory rape, there may or may not be consent but there usually is. The law doesn’t recognize the ability of at least one of the participants to be capable of giving consent and a somewhat arbitrary age is set. Apparently in Texas it’s 16 or 17. But these women were given in marriage, had a husband and some of them children too. Except for the polygamy thing, it was something of a home.

Rape on the other hand is a crime of violence against the woman and is often brutal.

I believe she intentionally blurred these two.

I think this discussion has come down to a question of what’s to be done. I don’t think anyone really agrees with FLDS practices.

 

[majick275]

oh well as as long there is a marriage and a “home” it’s okay to rape underage girls… i mean after all they were brought up to consent right? this IS a crime and it IS brutal!

 

[twopekinguys]

MelanieAnne, perhaps what Texas law enforcement should have done is just what the feds did at Waco–torch the place and kill most of the people. That certainly would have ended all THE ABUSE!! My point? Oh, that there’s a cost to everything. Sure that would have trampled their rights to the ground but taking newborn babies away from their mothers is extreme too.

Some of the women have been married before they should have been. Granted. No one is disputing that but are we really breaking up families, holding people and sending children off to foster homes because of that? I’m not saying that’s not illegal but how about som sense of proportion here? As grandfather pointed out, it’s fairly common in America and rarely presecuted. No to mention the age of consent in some states and countries is 14 and so the line of legality is with some degree arbitrary.

First of all, the Branch Davidians (Waco) set the fires, not the government.

Right now, there is only one state that has an age of consent at 14, and that is South Carolina. (which is irrelevant)
coolnurse.com/consent.htm . Even if it was relevant, some of these children were pregant at age 13. Kinda blows that thought huh.

The mothers of the FLDS are just as guilty in this abuse situation as the men. The women knew this was going on, and allowed it. They should be prosecuted just as vigorously as the men.

It is the state’s responsibility to protect all of the children, not just one or two.

If the state hadn’t done it this way, and the story started with one, then another, and another, I wonder how many would be saying they should have taken all of them at once.

MelanieAnne is right on target on this. The state is protecting those who have been abused, as well as those in danger of being abused.

As far as your statement about it being “something of a home”, so is living in a crack house, but I wouldn’t want a child living there.

 

[MelanieAnne]

There is something overly melodramtic in your statement, from my point of view, that borders on comical actually.

Do people on this thread tolerate rape of children? All who do so, raise their hands.

Thanks for the evaluation. Does “perhaps what Texas law enforcement should have done is just what the feds did at Waco–torch the place and kill most of the people. That certainly would have ended all THE ABUSE!!” constitute drama too? Just wondering.

Several members of this forum have expressed concern about the casual attitude of some people towards the protection of the children of this cult, people who keep demanding the return of the children to their families, no doubt so that “regular family life” can continue. This has been construed by some as at least bordering on tolerance of the sexual abuse of these children. Perhaps since you came in during the 2nd or 3rd act of this drama, some of the story is missing for you?

I am concerned about the protection of children. Adults can take care of themselves, while children cannot. While some posters may construe any concern about protecting children as some sort of attack, others, correctly believe that the protection of children trumps other concerns.

I don’t consider the sexual abuse of children a joke. It’s unfortunate if anyone does. The actions taken by the State of Texas in this matter are no different than any other case of this type. The one way this case differs is that there are so many children involved. The typical case is not usually of this scope. That may be the only reason so few people are even familiar with the process and find it so unusual. But it’s not unusual. The only thing that is different this time is the number of children involved.

 

[zaffiroborant]

While some posters may construe any concern about protecting children as some sort of attack, others, correctly believe that the protection of children trumps other concerns.

It seems to me that many seem to equate sexual maturity with adulthood and really don’t see anything wrong with a 40 year old man “marrying” 14 year old girl whose capable of reproducing. After all she is physically a “women” and her MOTHER and FATHER think it’s fine so where’s the problem???

 

[rmcmullan]

So I must return to the point I have raised previously and so far has been unanswered–if the FLDS ends the underage marriages, is everybody okay with that now? Are you ready to have them move in next door? Or are you just intent on lynching them using any excuse? A one word answer would do!

 

[ibkc]

So I must return to the point I have raised previously and so far has been unanswered–if the FLDS ends the underage marriages, is everybody okay with that now?

Actually, I think plenty of people did answer you on this question. I certainly remember answering you but since you seem to have missed it:

Yes, I would be. There are several things I personally find very unsavory about these people. But the raising girls to be sex slaves and the underaged marriages to horny old men is the biggest thing, for me, a anyway.

Are you ready to have them move in next door? Or are you just intent on lynching them using any excuse? A one word answer would do!

Could you tone down the combativeness just a little here?

 

[grandfather]

So in essence, what you are saying is that all of the children should have been left ,?
…

 

[ibkc]

There needs to be some evidence of a crime before arrests are made of any individual, much less sieze hundreds of children.

I am sorry, but that is just not how it works. CPS can remove children if they suspect abuse has happened. Period. I don’t know how many times this has to be said before it gets through! It is for the protection of the children.

As for “evidence of a crime before arrests are made of any individual”, you’ll note that no arrests have been made yet. The investigations are ongoing.

 

[twopekinguys]

I am sorry, but that is just not how it works. CPS can remove children if they suspect abuse has happened. Period. I don’t know how many times this has to be said before it gets through! It is for the protection of the children.

As for “evidence of a crime before arrests are made of any individual”, you’ll note that no arrests have been made yet. The investigations are ongoing.

BINGO!!! We have a winner!!!

I don’t know why it is so hard to understand that it is about protecting all of the children. Stopping the abuse that is happening, and preventing any future abuse.

This isn’t about persecuting the FLDS, it is about protecting children.

I say boo hoo for the women that allowed this abuse. I don’t feel sorry for them one bit.
Personally, I think ***if ***any charges are brought against anyone in this situation, they should be brought against the mothers for child endangerment, along with the sexual abuse charges against the men.

 

[rmcmullan]

Actually, I think plenty of people did answer you on this question. I certainly remember answering you but since you seem to have missed it:

Could you tone down the combativeness just a little here?

Ooops, you’re right, I did get some very reasonable answers and yours was very reasonable. Okay, I’ll try to tone down.

Let me level with y’all. I did want to make sure that the underage marriages are the only objection. At least legally. A lot of what the FLDS do is, uh, not the pattern for the Zion society that they imagine IMHO. But there is some question about how widespread some of their practices are. Apparently a third of the families are regular monogamous families. I live in the east coast and the Amish and Mennonites are a common site here and perhaps I sympathise with the FLDS too much because of them. And maybe because I’m LDS too.

So I have to ask the question: “How does taking a newborn baby away from a mother prevent underage marriage?” I can’t see many of the Texas authorities actions as a guard against underage marriage. FLDS spokemen have said that the marriage age was a question of indifference to them. Perhaps they were not being totally honest but wouldn’t it make more sense to try to deal with that issue than break up all their homes? Breaking up a functioning family has to be a last resort sort of action–it traumatizes everyone involved. I can think of a whole host of different actions they could have taken if that was really their concern. If there was some indication that all the families were beating at least some of their kids, what they did would make sense and I would probably be as horrifed as the rest of you. I just seems like me that they’re using atom bombs to stamp out underage marriage. Or maybe they’re just trying to wipe the FLDS out? That’s what really is bothering me and that people are buying into it “because of the children!” If so, then we have a new blank check for out of control law enforcement.

 

[MelanieAnne]

It seems to me that many seem to equate sexual maturity with adulthood and really don’t see anything wrong with a 40 year old man “marrying” 14 year old girl whose capable of reproducing. After all she is physically a “women” and her MOTHER and FATHER think it’s fine so where’s the problem???

The problem is that it’s against the law.

 

[ibkc]

Ooops, you’re right, I did get some very reasonable answers and yours was very reasonable. Okay, I’ll try to tone down.

Let me level with y’all. I did want to make sure that the underage marriages are the only objection. At least legally. A lot of what the FLDS do is, uh, not the pattern for the Zion society that they imagine IMHO. But there is some question about how widespread some of their practices are. Apparently a third of the families are regular monogamous families.

Yep, indeed. ALL the FLDS are paying for the actions of an undetermined number. The thing is, though, by not cooperating with the investigation, the “not guilty” ones are making themselves look guilty, too, and if abuses are eventually proven, then all the FLDS is guilty. If the sect has truly been railroaded and misrepresented, then they should have no problem clearing themselves, right? By staying defiantly close-mouthed and secretive, they are damning themselves.

I live in the east coast and the Amish and Mennonites are a common site here and perhaps I sympathise with the FLDS too much because of them.

Are the Amish and Mennonites as secretive and isolationist as the FLDS? I don’t think they are, because they don’t have anything to hide, really. I have heard stories of bad things happening to children in those communities, but those are due more to a 19th-century view of childhood than to some kind of systematic, institutionalized abuse situation. What I mean by 19th-century mindset is ideas about what kind of work is appropriate for children to engage in, that sort of stuff. I hear about little boys working with large horses and heavy farm equipment, and accidents resulting from this. This is the kind of thing that can’t be called “abuse” because they are accidents.

And maybe because I’m LDS too.

Mainstream LDS isn’t anything like the FLDS though, right?

 

[J_C]

Breaking up a functioning family has to be a last resort sort of action–it traumatizes everyone involved.

It happens all the time. where I live there is a tremendous alcohol problem, one of the most common news items is of police action against drunk people for various crimes, especially against children. Example: mother drunk driving while feeding her two children liquor in the back seat. Has accident NOT HER FAULT but the officer notes the drunkenness, arrests the mother, the children are REMOVED FROM THE HOME and one of the charges against th mother is child abuse. true story, from just a couple of days ago.

yes families are “broken up” every day because the parents are breaking the law, and many times the children are only indirectly involved in the crimes. If parents go to prison, the children probably go to foster homes if there are no other family member ready to steop in. You may be too young to remember the Rosenberg espionage trial. Both parents found guilty and executed, back in the 50s. remember what happened to their children?

point being, it isn’t such a big deal that the FLDS “families” arebeing “broken up.” This is a common action of the government, always has been.