Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

[MelanieAnne]

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

There is evidence. The most obvious evidence is all the underage girls that are pregnant now or have already given birth, they are prima facie evidence of statutory rape. They’ve also been watching this cult for a number of years, there is no doubt extensive evidence not yet announced to the media. Just because you haven’t heard it, doesn’t mean they don’t have it. It is typical in all investigations to withhold most of the evidence, if not all of it, until the investigation is complete. The investigation is still going on.

Are the children suspects? How does the state investigate any crime? It follows legal procedures.

The children are not suspects, they are in protective custody. The state is doing further investigation following legal procedures, the sort of which go on every day in this country. There is nothing remarkable about this case except the number of children involved.

I agree. If I made the laws convicted fifty year old child abusers would be imprisoned for life.

Agreed. After all, hanging doesn’t seem to be enough punishment.

But you can’t condemn FLDS for doing the same thing that is sanctioned by the state.

You can if they’re using underage children for sex.

So go after them there legally.

That’s what they’re doing, everything done is within the law. The same sort of child protection laws in effect all over this country that have to be enforced far too often because of all the child predators.

The police were looking for two people, one claiming to have been raped, a victim, and the rapist, a criminal. Neither one was found. What legal right then, does the state claim to have to justify its actions against all these people?

Again, all the underage girls that are pregnant now or have already given birth are prima facie evidence of statutory rape. When they found these girls in the cult, they had no choice but to follow protective procedures for all the children. Any time the authorities go out to investigate a call, even if the reasons for the call results in nothing, if evidence of other crimes are found in the process, they are required to act. This is the law.

What right in civil law empowers the civil state to do what it did?

The right to protect the small and the weak against those who would exploit them or harm them. It should be the most important thing we do, not just the authorities, but all of us.

If you saw a young child wandering off into a busy street, and no one else around to protect the child, the first thing you would do would be to run and scoop that child up to keep the child from being hurt. That would be your first concern. LATER, you might express your anger at the child being left unattended towards the responsible parties. But FIRST you would save the child.

That is what the state has done here, protect the children from harm. It’s just in this case, the harm that endangers these children is sexual abuse, not an on-coming car.

 

[rmcmullan]

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 step 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” are being “broken up.” This is a common action of the government, always has been.

Feeding kids liquor is pretty serious amd I can understand that. But taking a newborn baby away from her birth mother to prevent underage marriage?

 

[Jerusha]

Feeding kids liquor is pretty serious amd I can understand that. But taking a newborn baby away from her birth mother to prevent underage marriage?

There are internet reports of babies being “waterboarded” to teach them not to cry.

If:

1. Underage marriage was stopped.
2. Biological mothers and fathers were held responsible for the financial support of the children, thus ending welfare abouse).
3. Child physical and psychological abuse were stopped.
4. There was evidence that their private educational system was adequate to prepare their children for coping with modern society.
5. If people were free to leave without negative consequences.

then there would be no reason for legal action. It is not about thier beliefs, it is about their behavior.

 

[grandfather]

I think people are right to examine this case because we need to constantly guard religious freedom in America. There are forces in government that are actively trying to squelch it. They are mostly people in the Secular leftwing, and they are dangerous. They are able to use government to promote their ideology because they do not belong to an established religion. They use the separation of chuch and state clause of the constitution to repress religious expression.

Therefore, it IS important to scrutinize this case, and doing so doesn’t imply approval of acceptance of this particular religion.

This case is not about religious freedom.

 

[grandfather]

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…

But this individual mother was discovered drunk wiuth her kids how were drunk. Suppose she was discovered drunk and the police took away the children of everyone where she worked while they investigated them looking for drunk kids.

 

[grandfather]

There is evidence. The most obvious evidence is all the underage girls that are pregnant now or have already given birth, they are prima facie evidence of statutory rape. They’ve also been watching this cult for a number of years, there is no doubt extensive evidence not yet announced to the media. Just because you haven’t heard it, doesn’t mean they don’t have it. It is typical in all investigations to withhold most of the evidence, if not all of it, until the investigation is complete. The investigation is still going on.

Then every underage pregnant girl in America is evidence of a possible crime. All men should be required to give DNA to determine which man is the father. “There is no doubt that there is extensive evidence”, before any evidence has been presented, there is no doubt. Hang em all! Just because there is no evidence made public that you are a drug addict rapist that does not mean there is no evidence somewhere, including your parents and brothers and sisters. Someone said you did these tihngs and you and your family should all have your kids taken away. When the state gets ready to present its evidence it will be made clear that all this is true.

The children are not suspects, they are in protective custody. The state is doing further investigation following legal procedures, the sort of which go on every day in this country. There is nothing remarkable about this case except the number of children involved.

It is absolutely certain that a civil rights case will come out of this. I was on a jury once that convicted a guy of DUI. I was amazed at all the things the police had to do right, before they even pulled him over in order to make the charges stick. Assume there are underage girls being assigned to old men and all that is proven true. Lets say 30 girls are involved. So 430 plus families were broken up in the process. They were suspect, because they were FLDS. Now lets change the story just slightly. Suppose the police had proven statistics that showed blacks more likely to sell crack cocaine. Suppose they knew a neghborhood where the drug was trafiicked. Suppose they did a sweep and stopped every car being driven by a black and searched them. They stopped 500 cars and caught 50 with drugs. Why did they stop and search these people? Because they are black and everyone knows black people are more likely to be involved with crime. So what is the problem. We all know FLDS are kooks. Seize all their kids and hold them until you figure out whats what. Go get them.

Again, all the underage girls that are pregnant now or have already given birth are prima facie evidence of statutory rape.

Then this would also be true of every pregnant underage girl in America. If there is a crime committed, a murder, and a body is found bashed over the head, there is evidence of a crime. If DNA
of the murderer is found under the fingernails of the body there is evidence linking the crime to the murderer. If someone is arrested and the DNA matches the state has done its job. If they get a match coincidentally, from someone arrested for a non-related crime they have a suspect. The police can not check everyone who lives in a city or town looking for the culprit.

When they found these girls in the cult, they had no choice but to follow protective procedures for all the children. Any time the authorities go out to investigate a call, even if the reasons for the call results in nothing, if evidence of other crimes are found in the process, they are required to act. This is the law.

They did not find evidence. If the fact that a teenager is pregnant is evidence then every pregnant teenager everywhere is evidence.

If you saw a young child wandering off into a busy street, and no one else around to protect the child, the first thing you would do would be to run and scoop that child up to keep the child from being hurt. That would be your first concern. LATER, you might express your anger at the child being left unattended towards the responsible parties. But FIRST you would save the child.

This actually happened to me. I could not find the parents and called the police. But what does that have to do with Texas?
No one found a child in danger. There was a phoney phone call and a warrant issued for a man that was dropped.

If this cult is to be wiped out and I hope it is, what is happening now is not going to do it. These people will set up shop as soon as they can somewhere else. Some of the kids may end up in foster care, but they will regroup and be back at it, including the teenage girls, as soon as they can.

 

[ibkc]

Then every underage pregnant girl in America is evidence of a possible crime.

Those are the actions of individuals. In the case of the FLDS, it is a GROUP which FORMALLY advocates this behavior, even so far as men in their 60’s, 70’s and 80’s coveting teenaged girls and impregnating them. Girls in this group are not raised to make their own decisions, right or wrong, and get themselves in trouble by their own choices. They are raised SPECIFICALLY to be married and bred young, like livestock. I don’t know how to put it more plainly. Can you really and truly not perceive the difference?

 

[J_C]

But this individual mother was discovered drunk wiuth her kids how were drunk. Suppose she was discovered drunk and the police took away the children of everyone where she worked while they investigated them looking for drunk kids.

to keep the analogy correct, if the place where she worked was organized to get kids drunk on an institutional, ideological basis, as the FLDS is apparently organized on an institutional, ideological basis to match underage gorls up with old men, then of course there would be grounds for rounding everyone up, at least in my opinion if not solid legal opinion.

there’s the crux of the matter. if there were only a handful of cases of underage girls in FLDS hooking up with old men, on a basis of individual choice, then I wouldn’t see any reason to round them all up for investigation. But we are told that the FLDS does this as a matter of their religious belief. That makes the entire organization complicit, if true.

In the past the Federal government went after the LDS polygamists in the west, arresting and imprisoning them, confiscating LDS church property, etc. I read that the LDS church was all but bankrupt just before Utah statehood, due to Fed gov’t squeeze. If they hadn’t relented and got a revelation to end organized plural marriage, there seems little doubt that the Fed gov’t would have put the LDS organization completely out of business. I think this was a completely proper function of the government to eradicate this corrosive religious behaviour from the country as much as possible.

The FLDS is a piece of the tumor that didn’t get removed. It still festers in there, and maybe time has come to get rid of the last of it once and for all, or at least most of it.

 

[whiteknite]

On March 15, 1842, Smith was initiated as an Entered Apprentice Mason at the Nauvoo Lodge.
He was the founder of Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
He only seen the bible as a money maker and fabricated all his teaching for his own personal gain and his masonic brothers.
same as charles taze russell of the jehovas w’s

 

[rmcmullan]

there’s the crux of the matter. if there were only a handful of cases of underage girls in FLDS hooking up with old men, on a basis of individual choice, then I wouldn’t see any reason to round them all up for investigation. But we are told that the FLDS does this as a matter of their religious belief. That makes the entire organization complicit, if true.

A correction here: their religious belief is about polygamy, not underaged marriage. So the entire organization is not complicit.

It’s been reported that about two thirds of the FLDS are polygamous. This causes a huge imbalance in the population, for them to really practice polygamy on the scale they imagine, they would need a much, much larger percentage of marriageable women than men. One way of achieving this is to marry the women off at a much earlier age. I think there’s about a hundred things wrong with this whole situation, starting with the widespread practise of polygamy but I’ve been over that before. Their (IMHO unreasonable) relentless and determined pursuit of polygamy has lead them to the underage marriages but this is more of a practical reality than a belief.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Those are the actions of individuals. In the case of the FLDS, it is a GROUP which FORMALLY advocates this behavior, even so far as men in their 60’s, 70’s and 80’s coveting teenaged girls and impregnating them. Girls in this group are not raised to make their own decisions, right or wrong, and get themselves in trouble by their own choices. They are raised SPECIFICALLY to be married and bred young, like livestock. I don’t know how to put it more plainly. Can you really and truly not perceive the difference?

The answer appears to be “no”. It would appear that many people have difficulty distinguishing between the silly irresponsible choices of teenage girls and a policy of predatory sexual abuse by adult males justified by religious doctrine.

 

[grandfather]

Those are the actions of individuals. In the case of the FLDS, it is a GROUP which FORMALLY advocates this behavior, even so far as men in their 60’s, 70’s and 80’s coveting teenaged girls and impregnating them. Girls in this group are not raised to make their own decisions, right or wrong, and get themselves in trouble by their own choices. They are raised SPECIFICALLY to be married and bred young, like livestock. I don’t know how to put it more plainly. Can you really and truly not perceive the difference?

This is hearsay. We keep returning to the hearsay and emotional response. Catholic bishops have covered up fopr crimes of priests and many people would say have aided and abetted in them. There are hundreds of priests who are implicatedall around the country. The problem seems to be systematic, institutional. There are many accusers. They should all be rounded up and their records seized and searched for evidence of crimes so they can be tried for their crimes. You do hate sex abusers of children don’t you? You do want to to protect more children from being raped don’t you? I know a man who was raped by a priest as a boy. The priest was sentenced to fouteen years in prison. The bishop hid the crimes. This is not hearsay. It is fact and it occurs all over the country. Doesn’t this warrant invading all the dioceses? Shouldn’t the state seize all the altar boys and separate them from their families until an investigation is complete to protect them? How could you diasgree? If you do you condone sex abuse of children.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Sometimes the “ignore” feature can be your best friend.

 

[ibkc]

This is hearsay.

Um, no. It’s not. The leader of the FLDS, Warren Jeffs, is in jail for arranging these marriages, and more charges are pending against him. That the FLDS does this is an established fact.

 

[majick275]

it all started with the example set by joseph smith. fanny alger for starters but plenty more.

 

[ibkc]

Catholic bishops have covered up fopr crimes of priests and many people would say have aided and abetted in them. There are hundreds of priests who are implicatedall around the country. The problem seems to be systematic, institutional.

Excuse me, “grandfather”, can you point out to me where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it is specifically preached that sexual abuse of children is not only OK, but desired by God? Can you find me any encyclicals which advocate child sexual abuse? How about any off-the-cuff personal statements from any popes advocating child sexual abuse?

You can’t? Alrighty then.

“grandfather,” you are a moral relativist and if either of my son’s grandfathers expressed the kind of support that you do for the FLDS’s kind of child abuse, I would be extremely disturbed and would think twice about allowing contact with my boy. But rather than placing you on ignore as MelanieAnne suggests, I think it’s important to keep pointing out the massive, gaping holes in your shoddy, pathetic arguments.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Excuse me, “grandfather”, can you point out to me where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it is specifically preached that sexual abuse of children is not only OK, but desired by God? Can you find me any encyclicals which advocate child sexual abuse? How about any off-the-cuff personal statements from any popes advocating child sexual abuse?

You can’t? Alrighty then.

“grandfather,” you are a moral relativist and if either of my son’s grandfathers expressed the kind of support that you do for the FLDS’s kind of child abuse, I would be extremely disturbed and would think twice about allowing contact with my boy. But rather than placing you on ignore as MelanieAnne suggests, I think it’s important to keep pointing out the massive, gaping holes in your shoddy, pathetic arguments.

IBKC, I applaud your valiant efforts.

 

[grandfather]

Um, no. It’s not. The leader of the FLDS, Warren Jeffs, is in jail for arranging these marriages, and more charges are pending against him. That the FLDS does this is an established fact.

Hearsay is anything you believe that you have heard from a third party, that you did not witness directly. In order to be a witness in court you must have direct knowledge of the matter of your testimony. Jeffs is in jail and a number of his associates can be presumed to participate in behavior similar to his. That does not mean they all do. You can’t convict a person of a crime, because they associate with criminals. Joe is a known drug dealer and Mike, Tom and Jim went to the same school, live in the same apartment and hang out with Joe all the time so they are guilty. Cardinal Law protected priests who were pedophiles. All priests in Boston are not pedophiles.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Hearsay is anything you believe that you have heard from a third party, that you did not witness directly. In order to be a witness in court you must have direct knowledge of the matter of your testimony. Jeffs is in jail and a number of his associates can be presumed to participate in behavior similar to his. That does not mean they all do. You can’t convict a person of a crime, because they associate with criminals. Joe is a known drug dealer and Mike, Tom and Jim went to the same school, live in the same apartment and hang out with Joe all the time so they are guilty. Cardinal Law protected priests who were pedophiles. All priests in Boston are not pedophiles.

I don’t suppose you noticed that Cardinal Law is not a Cardinal in Boston anymore? THAT SHOULD BE A CLUE.

But in any event, moral equivalency is not a good road to get on. Then again, it appears some just get stuck there. Is it a rock in their shoe? Something else? What? Perhaps you can tell us?

I can only guess that since you had no answers for the points previously made by IBKC, that you are unable to refute them which is why we have been treated to yet another dose of blather?

But back on point ~ the sexual abuse of children is always wrong. He’s not here to back me up just at the moment, but I’m quite sure OUR LORD would agree with that statement. Just a guess of course.

NB ~ It’s OK to say you got it wrong. Good people won’t jump all over you for it and you can skip the rest.

 

[grandfather]

I don’t suppose you noticed that Cardinal Law is not a Cardinal in Boston anymore? THAT SHOULD BE A CLUE.