Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

[grandfather]

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?

 

[ibkc]

Excuse me, grandfather, but you are trying to establish a parallel between the ritualized, systematic, formal child abuse of the FLDS and the cancer of sex abuse among the clergy in the Catholic Church. The latter is an abomination to Catholic belief and goes against all Catholic teaching and has been caused by the extreme liberalization not only of the Church in the last half-century, but society as a whole. And, the problem is not limited to just the Catholic Church. You can read here for too many stomach-turning examples of sex abuse among Protestant clergy. It only goes up to 2003, but I think it makes the point.

My point is that these cases are STILL individual cases. It is NOT part of the beliefs of the Catholic Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Lutheran Church or any mainstream church to abuse children. It IS part of the beliefs of the FLDS to abuse children, and they put this into practice.

And I do not back away from my assessment of you as a moral relativist. I think that label fits you nicely, actually.

 

[grandfather]

Excuse me, grandfather, but you are trying to establish a parallel between the ritualized, systematic, formal child abuse of the FLDS and the cancer of sex abuse among the clergy in the Catholic Church. The latter is an abomination to Catholic belief and goes against all Catholic teaching and has been caused by the extreme liberalization not only of the Church in the last half-century, but society as a whole. And, the problem is not limited to just the Catholic Church. You can read here for too many stomach-turning examples of sex abuse among Protestant clergy. It only goes up to 2003, but I think it makes the point.

My point is that these cases are STILL individual cases. It is NOT part of the beliefs of the Catholic Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Lutheran Church or any mainstream church to abuse children. It IS part of the beliefs of the FLDS to abuse children, and they put this into practice.

And I do not back away from my assessment of you as a moral relativist. I think that label fits you nicely, actually.

 

[grandfather]

Excuse me, grandfather, but you are trying to establish a parallel between the ritualized, systematic, formal child abuse of the FLDS and the cancer of sex abuse among the clergy in the Catholic Church. The latter is an abomination to Catholic belief and goes against all Catholic teaching and has been caused by the extreme liberalization not only of the Church in the last half-century, but society as a whole. And, the problem is not limited to just the Catholic Church. You can read here for too many stomach-turning examples of sex abuse among Protestant clergy. It only goes up to 2003, but I think it makes the point.

My point is that these cases are STILL individual cases. It is NOT part of the beliefs of the Catholic Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Lutheran Church or any mainstream church to abuse children. It IS part of the beliefs of the FLDS to abuse children, and they put this into practice.

And I do not back away from my assessment of you as a moral relativist. I think that label fits you nicely, actually.

For legal purposes it does not matter that group A condemns X behavior and group Y condones it. If they are both engaged in it they are to be treated in the same way. Its like saying my family does not believe in robbing banks, but my nephews who work for me on my payroll and are financed by me are Jesse and Frank James. It is like Saudi Arabia selling us oil for $120 per barrel and financing terrorism, while saying they are not involved, or did not know what was happening when hald the 9-11 terrorists were Saudis and the government builds wahabi mosques. Our pope is ashamed of what has taken place, the rape of boys. Jeffs says underage marriage, young girls to old men is part of his religion. That does not matter if you are a district attorney. High officials of the Catholic Church were involved in systematic abuse and coverups of crimes all over this country. Cdl Law should probably be in jail. There was definitely enough evidence to try him and it was contemplated. He was whisked off to Rome. Instead of being sent to a monastery to be removed from the public eye the disgrace that he is, he was given great honors and his pillow is fluffed by a bunch of toadies. How is this different from a bishop reassigning serial molesters? Rome reassigned Law and put him out of reach in case the Boston DA wanted to try him. The FLDS reassigns wives and bishops reassigned molesters and would still be doing it if it were not for getting caught. Cdl Law claimed no responsibility to discipline the criminal priests. He said angrily that he was a pastor not a policeman. Doesn’t this give you a clue that he is impenitent still? He has no shame. He gladly accepted a position of honor in Rome and continues to pose.

If an organization condemns a behavior and rewards some of those who do it doesn’t that upset you, especially if it is your own Church? Do you want the same justice for criminal perverted priests and bishops as you do FLDS? If you do not, are you a moral relativist?

As far as name calling I wish you knew me personally. You calling me a moral relativist and all the other silly names has literally made me laugh out loud.

 

[MelanieAnne]

ibkc;3641177:

I am a sinner, but certainly not a moral relativist. That is ridiculous. I do not support the FLDS, child abuse, polygamy, or welfare fraud. I also don’t support lynch mobs.

Grandfather, when you equate the actions of sinful men acting against their vows with those of men that are acting according to the doctrines of their church, you are setting up a moral equivalency of the worst kind.

It’s one of those “if it walks like a duck” sort of things. This one is definitely a duck. That’s not a personal attack, it’s an evaluation of the reasoning that leads to that sort of equivalency.

Notwithstanding any claims to the contrary, the incessant calls for returning the children to their parents, many of whom have abused them for which there is incontrovertible evidence in the form of underage pregnant girls, gives the appearance of supporting the sexual predators in their choice to exploit children. Those who claim to “not support the FLDS, child abuse, polygamy” undermine that claim by calling for the return of abused children to their abusers.

 

[ibkc]

If an organization condemns a behavior and rewards some of those who do it doesn’t that upset you, especially if it is your own Church? Do you want the same justice for criminal perverted priests and bishops as you do FLDS? If you do not, are you a moral relativist?

I do not want my church condemned because my church DOES NOT ADVOCATE CHILD ABUSE. If you think it does, then you belong to a different church than I do. Now, I absolutely want individuals involved in this to be rooted out and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, just as I want every criminal and abuser to be found and prosecuted.

Your extreme relativism is a matter of record with your numerous statements on this thread.

 

[grandfather]

grandfather;3641584:

Grandfather, when you equate the actions of sinful men acting against

their vows with those of men that are acting according to the doctrines of their church, you are setting up a moral equivalency of the worst kind.

I don’t equate them. I used the comparison to show that the civil authorities have as much right to do to Catholics as they did in Texas. Despite what Bill O’Reilly thinks all use of “moral equivialency”, using one example as a reference to understand another is not evil. There are good analogies and bad ones. None are perfect. I agree with you that there is a difference between a group that advocates a behavior and another that condemns it. One man can say he is opposed to wife beating and another can say it is necessary to keep women in line. If they both beat their wives they should be dealt with in the same manner by the civil authorities no matter what they say their moral position on wife beating is. If the justification for what happened in TX was to deal with institutional abuse of minors is valid a case could be made for rounding up all Catholic priests and investigating them. It does not matter that the Church says it is wrong. I understand you do not want your Church to be treated in this way, because it does not preach pedohhilia, but that does not change the fact that many crimes were committed by a group of people affiliated officially with our religion. There is a pattern and billions of dollars have been paid off by our bishops proving it. Everyone must be treated in law the same way, priests and FLDS.

It’s one of those “if it walks like a duck” sort of things. This one is definitely a duck. That’s not a personal attack, it’s an evaluation of the reasoning that leads to that sort of equivalency.

Hold it! I am saying that the walking talking duck approach is the problem with what happened in TX.

Notwithstanding any claims to the contrary, the incessant calls for returning the children to their parents, many of whom have abused them for which there is incontrovertible evidence in the form of underage pregnant girls, gives the appearance of supporting the sexual predators in their choice to exploit children. Those who claim to “not support the FLDS, child abuse, polygamy” undermine that claim by calling for the return of abused children to their abusers.

In this country we believe rightly or wrongly that sometimes criminals get away with crimes, because of the restraints placed on the judicial system to protect citizens from the government that has a tendency to abuse power. There is that word abuse again. If police were only able to use torture as an interogation technique they would get a lot more confessions. A lot of innocent people would be convicted, but a lot of criminals would be also. I know personally of a criminal case in federal court where a young man was convicted of a crime he did commit. The reason he was convicted, and I know this to be true, is an FBI agent lied under oath in the courtroom. He knew the kid was guilty and did what he had to do to get the conviction. The young man was sentenced to six years in a federal prison. He was guilty, so who cares? The government committed a crime in convicting him. If you defend the rights of all citizens some criminals will not get convicted. The notion is not mine. It goes back to the founding of the republic. Government will abuse power and needs to be limited. The young man in question was making bombs and setting them off in remote areas. His trial came up soon after 9-11. Emotions were highly charged as they are in the FLDS case. Demanding that the government play by the book does not mean someone supports child rape or making bombs.

Making comparisions called moral equivalency is a new universal vice as proclaimed by O’Reilly, but it is not relativism. Relativism is saying there is no objective truth. Did anyone here me say that? The utility of comparing cases and situations is useful, because it gives a reference point. In law when a case is being tried it is always normal procedure to cite precedent. If it was legal here it is legal there, or illegal, because the activity is similar. You can’t isolate one case from another that relate to the same crime. There are times when comparision or equivalency fail. That is when there is no comparision. The difference between the FLDS case and the crimes of priests is that the official polcy of the institutions are different. That is like saying one wife beater should be treated differently than another, because he thinks wife beting is wrong and still does it, while the other thinks it is acceptable behavior.

 

[ibkc]

Making comparisions called moral equivalency is a new universal vice as proclaimed by O’Reilly, but it is not relativism. Relativism is saying there is no objective truth. Did anyone here me say that?

You are refusing to acknowledge that 1) it can be known what exactly the FLDS teaches; 2) the members of the FLDS have acted on those teachings; 3) until this can be sorted out, it is best to protect the children involved from further harm; and you are also attempting to hold equal the behavior of members of a religious group which includes child abuse as part of its beliefs and the behaviors of members of a religious group which absolutely condemns child abuse. So yeah, there doesn’t seem to be much faith in the idea of objective truth here.

The funny thing is, you keep repeating over and over that Texas CPS has no right to remove children from what they suspect to be an abusive situation. Regardless of what anyone thinks about your belief in objective truth, the biggest objective truth that you are missing is that YES, Texas CPS can do that. Any state CPS can do that. In fact, that is what CPS does. It evaluates situations and decides whether children are safe or not, and removes them if there is any doubt. You can gripe and moan till the cows come home about whether Texas CPS was correct in this action or not, but the objective truth is that it did have the right to do it.

 

[MelanieAnne]

There is only a couple of reasons that we even know about this and those reasons are:

1. It’s FLDS and their ways are thought to be strange enough that when something involves them it makes headlines, and
2. The scope of the situation is huge.

The fact is that this sort of child protection goes on every day in this country because there are far too many adults that put children in danger and/or exploit them. Of course we would all prefer that all children be raised in a safe, loving environment, but unfortunately that’s not always the case.

That’s where CPS comes in. They remove children from an environment that is reasonably believed to be unsafe and protect them from abuse/exploitation, etc.

It’s likely that many people have never heard about this sort of situation, even though it occurs frequently, because few cases are so remarkable that they make national news. This story did, for the reasons already stated.

As IBKC has pointed out, this is standard procedure for CPS. People unfamiliar with the process may be taken aback, at least at first. But they need to stop saying “CPS can’t do this” because CPS can and does do this every day. That’s just a FACT. It’s better to protect children than leave them to the possibility of being harmed.

 

[grandfather]

The funny thing is, you keep repeating over and over that Texas CPS has no right to remove children from what they suspect to be an abusive situation. Regardless of what anyone thinks about your belief in objective truth, the biggest objective truth that you are missing is that YES, Texas CPS can do that. Any state CPS can do that. In fact, that is what CPS does. It evaluates situations and decides whether children are safe or not, and removes them if there is any doubt. You can gripe and moan till the cows come home about whether Texas CPS was correct in this action or not, but the objective truth is that it did have the right to do it.

I don’t know the relevant law in every state, but hear the claim that CPS can act on suspicion. I do know of an isolated case in one state, not TX.

I know a Protestant fundamentalist family whose sect taught that children should be beaten for discipline. I have no problem with a kid being spanked. That is not the issue. The wife of this family was imbalanced and really tore into the kids. There were five. The oldest daughter called the cops. There is a similarity here with the FLDS phone call, but in this case the call was real. CPS came to the door with police and said they were there because they heard the kids were being spanked and they wanted to investigate. They asked if they could come in and talk about it. The mother let them in. Once they were in the door they had the right to take the kids if they saw evidence of abuse. That is what happened. Had the mother refused entry they would not have been able to sieze the children or enter the home. In order for CPS to act on their suspicions they had to be invited in the door. The parents hired a lawyer to get their kids back and that is what they learned. CPS had no right of entry or to raid the home and take the kids based on the call the daughter made. At trial the state tried to keep the kids permanently. They were placed in the home of a family that belonged to the same local church. The foster family was on the side of the state, because the kids were whipped severely with welts all over. I was glad the kids got protection. Had the state knocked down the door and violated the restrictions it was supposed to obey things would have been different. In any case, based on this case that I personally know of, I am not sure that I believe that every state CPS agency has the unlimited authority you claim. You could be right, but I know it is not the case in at least one state.

 

[grandfather]

I am wondering why I am doing this. I don’t know what purpose is being served, other than opinionating. It is also sucking up a lot of energy and seems to serve no useful purpose. The name calling was a sign that this is useless. I give up. There is no point in carrying the dialogue on any further. The dialogue will have no impact on the outcome. God bless all!

 

[distracted]

Had the state knocked down the door and violated the restrictions it was supposed to obey things would have been different.

Showing the importance of CPS obeying the laws,
something that SHOULD go without saying… but… whatever…

, I am not sure that I believe that every state CPS agency has the unlimited authority you claim.

from what i have seen, they seem to be above the law…
But the FLDS case is weird because the authorities were supposed 2 have known about “things” four years before the raid… (of course it is weird in other ways too)…

In any case, it is sad to see that human nature being what it is, often people are quick to virtually throw out certain laws & procedures just because of the magnitude of the alleged (key word) wrongs/crimes…

 

[rmcmullan]

I am wondering why I am doing this. I don’t know what purpose is being served, other than opinionating. It is also sucking up a lot of energy and seems to serve no useful purpose. The name calling was a sign that this is useless. I give up. There is no point in carrying the dialogue on any further. The dialogue will have no impact on the outcome. God bless all!

You’re doing it in hopes of uncovering truth. It’s a big help for people trying to think things through. You might never change the mind of the person you’re debating with–not immediately especially. But there are others who are listening and thinking about what is being said.

Hey, I really appreciated your comments.

 

[twopekinguys]

Here are a couple of updated articles regarding this situation.

cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/11/yffz.search.ap/index.html#cnnSTCText

The key statements in the article:

"Local authorities have said it was not until after the raid began that they learned the sect was marrying off underage girls at the compound and had a bed in its soaring limestone temple where the girls were required to immediately consummate their marriages. A number of teenage girls are pregnant, investigators said.

Warren Jeffs, the *sect’s prophet and spiritual leader *at its longtime headquarters in the dusty, side-by-side towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Arizona, was charged in 2005 and 2006 with forcing underage girls into marriages. He was convicted in September in Utah of being an *accomplice to rape *and is serving up to life in prison."

The second article is:

cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/05/polygamist.families/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

“But on at least one family’s document – the Jacob H. Johnson family – the address for Jacob’s 22-year-old wife and infant daughter is listed as a "house of hiding.”

At least one child is in a house of hiding, and is at risk of being abused. That is one child too many.

More and more of this information is coming out as the story unfolds.

This is nothing more than ritualized, mandated rape and abuse.

 

[distracted]

Yes, of course. But in this case, there’s no evidence that Texas authorities haven’t adhered to the law.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence one way or the other… Unfortunately, we Americans who hear the news on TV have to trust that we are being told the turth… Unfortunately, I am not one of those who believes we are. I have been through terrible injustices and seen injustices done to others… I have seen how the history books have lied to us… I have seen human nature at its worst… I don’t just take the media’s word for ANYTHING… and if you had walked 1/2 a mile in my shoes, you would be saying the same thing…

When there is evidence of abuse, authorities remove all children from the premises. That’s SOP everywhere. And in this case, there is ample evidence of abuse.

I hope you are rgiht… I feel you are right… I feel the TX CPS had a reason to do what they did… But i don’t blindly trust those feelings because of what i have been through (and seen others go through)…

 

[twopekinguys]

Unfortunately, there is no evidence one way or the other… Unfortunately, we Americans who hear the news on TV have to trust that we are being told the turth… Unfortunately, I am not one of those who believes we are. I have been through terrible injustices and seen injustices done to others… I have seen how the history books have lied to us… I have seen human nature at its worst… I don’t just take the media’s word for ANYTHING… and if you had walked 1/2 a mile in my shoes, you would be saying the same thing…

I hope you are rgiht… I feel you are right… I feel the TX CPS had a reason to do what they did… But i don’t blindly trust those feelings because of what i have been through (and seen others go through)…

You do make a valid point. It is too easy to say the media is right, when they report something we agree with, and call it unfair when they report something we don’t like.

All we can do is base our opinions on what is reported, and use our best judgement to sort out the details for ourselves.

It sounds like you have had your share of hard life lessons, and for that I pray for you. I just hope it is better for you now.

 

[distracted]

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!

I think anyone who repents andchanges his/her ways should be given another chance… unless the child was seriously abused/raped, etc… I think a man who impregnates a 14-yr old girl should not have any rights to the child… Of course, if the child already has a bond with such a pervert… that complicates things… then it would be abusing the child to separated him/her… and yet… well, i just don’t have all the answers… I would have to have time to think abouti t further… I think maybe he should have maybe some kind contact w/ the child if there is a bond, but it should be minimal… i don’t know…
this is why God wanted us to do things His way, so there wouldn’t be any of these seemingly unanswerable problems… :banghead: :doh2:

 

[distracted]

If an organization condemns a behavior and rewards some of those who do it doesn’t that upset you, especially if it is your own Church? Do you want the same justice for criminal perverted priests and bishops as you do FLDS? If you do not, are you a moral relativist?

this reminds me of something… Did you hear about this group of Catholics who says that our Pope is a heretic? I used a search engine and typed in St. Malachy… (long story why)… I got this information about heresy and how Benedict XVI is. teaching things that are not orthodox… I didn’t have time to read it through then but i am going to go back andread it… One thing the writer atthat site said was that the Vatican was goingto be the seat of the anti-Christ… Well, that may or may not be true… but it wouldn’t surprise me becaue there are already a lot of non-Catholics in the Catholic Church…
Anyway, i think i will go back to that site now and read more…

 

[rmcmullan]

I think anyone who repents andchanges his/her ways should be given another chance… unless the child was seriously abused/raped, etc… I think a man who impregnates a 14-yr old girl should not have any rights to the child… Of course, if the child already has a bond with such a pervert… that complicates things… then it would be abusing the child to separated him/her… and yet… well, i just don’t have all the answers… I would have to have time to think abouti t further… I think maybe he should have maybe some kind contact w/ the child if there is a bond, but it should be minimal… i don’t know…
this is why God wanted us to do things His way, so there wouldn’t be any of these seemingly unanswerable problems… :banghead: :doh2:

I think that’s a very sensible post. There are a lot of things that aren’t very clear here. This entire situation has been demonized to a point where it’s almost unreal. But these young girls are given in marriage and to them it’s a home and family. That’s why they’re doing everything they can to fight the Texas CPS.

But there is a point where the young women are part of the problem, that’s certainly not unheard of. In real abuse situations, and I mean real abuse, not underage marriage, the women are too afraid and dependent to stand up for themselves or their children. I think that’s what leading to all the hysteria, people are assuming every FLDS home is like that. But I can believe that even a home with a young bride (even too young) and a polygamous husband can be happy. And some of the FLDS homes are monogamous and not all the wives and mothers are too young. So I don’t agree with using the “nuclear option”, breaking up every family possible.

 

[majick275]

the monogamous FLDS homes are temporary at best since their doctrine requires at least 3 wives to be compliant with “the principle”. those who do not obey have their wives (and children) “reassigned”. by raising these girls from birth on an isolated compound to believe that this is Gods command makes it difficult for them to exercise free agency. they are damaged mentally and emotionally. the only way they can get these 3+ wife families is to marry young girls. this is NOT a case where only some re a problem. this entire organization is criminal and needs to be dealt with. none of these “families” is legal OR healthy for women or children. (or men for that matter)