Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

[Nan_S]

How can they return them to their parents, if the DNA can’t establish who that is?

The child welfare authorities weren’t concerned about that when they grabbed the kids in the first place. They just hauled off anyone who they thought looked like a kid, without bothering to ask questions about who was who. If the child welfare authorities had checked records and IDs at the time, they would not have been forced later to admit that some of these “kids” were up to 27 years old!

I say the state should release to the FLDS church authorities all the kids who are clearly not at risk and let the FLDS community sort it out. And I do mean ALL the kids whose status is undisputed, not just the kids of the 38 mothers who were named in the hearing before the State Supreme Court.

The State of Texas has laws setting age limits for marriage and sexual consent, and those laws need to be enforced, but this was waaayyy too heavy-handed.

 

[zerinus]

no need. i have faith that all will end well

I am sure it will, but not to your liking.

zerinus

 

[J_C]

golly I see this thing is STILL in the news.

Last nighht it was reported that the investigation is continuing.

I suppose it will also continie being in the news.

From the point of view of anyone who has a bone to pick with the whole idea of Mormon polygmy this is a good thing.

I supppose the Mormonns themselves would just as soon it would go away, sooner than later.

 

[MelanieAnne]

golly I see this thing is STILL in the news.

Last nighht it was reported that the investigation is continuing.

I suppose it will also continie being in the news.

From the point of view of anyone who has a bone to pick with the whole idea of Mormon polygmy this is a good thing.

I supppose the Mormonns themselves would just as soon it would go away, sooner than later.

Yes, this is no doubt like a bad dream that just keeps coming back for some Mormons. Perhaps that’s the source of the occasional intemperate remarks.

 

[majick275]

What? I thought you put me on your ignore list. And I was enjoying it there!

The point you bring up does not really matter. And your credibility is really hurting after you in particular (although you’re not the only one) went on a spree of demonizing the FLDS, only to have all the fantastic claims of evil and horror and abuse and rape and sexual torture tossed out by the Texas Supreme Court.

Please, put me back on your ignore list!

NONE of those claims were “tossed out”. read the ruling. what it says is that the normal investigative process should be used for the kids who this applies to instead of the preemptive removal of children. the actions of the FLDS are indefensible no matter how badly the LDs want them to be seen as okay. (since they are no different than the early LDS. exiling young men, assigning and reassigning wives and children are undisputed in this case. assigning of underage girls as wives by the “prophet” is pretty hard to deny now that he’s in prison. that at least 5 underage girls in this roundup were impregnated has been proven. evidence is heavily in favor of the fathers being FLDS adults. what is teh real reason you insist on championing this?

 

[majick275]

I am sure it will, but not to your liking.

zerinus

wow you’re psychic…or receiving revelation…

what would be to my liking is for little girls to get to grow up and marry someone they love, for boys to grow up in loving homes instead of being tossed out on the street, for children to receive at least a high school education, for women to not get “reassigned” to men as a “prize” for obedience to cult leaders. what about you ? what here is to your liking?

 

[Nan_S]

You all do realize that this entire case would never have happened if the FLDS had built its compound in another state that allows younger teens to marry.

Texas requires a court order before someone under 16 may legally wed. Several states permit 15-year-olds to marry simply with parental consent. Alabama and South Carolina permit girls to marry at 14. New Hampshire permits girls to marry at 13.

WHAT WERE THEY THINKING when they built their compound in Texas???

Maybe the real estate was too expensive in states where their child-marriage practices were legally permitted???

 

[rmcmullan]

Majick, please refer to my very recent posting:

The entire point about this case, why I object to it so much, is how the State of Texas stomps Parents Rights right into the ground.

It’s very easy to turn this largely rhetorical question around:

Isn’t the real reason you keep hammering away at the great evil of the FLDS is the LDS in their name and your curiously overblown fear of polygamy?

 

[majick275]

Majick, please refer to my very recent posting:

It’s very easy to turn this largely rhetorical question around:

Isn’t the real reason you keep hammering away at the great evil of the FLDS is the LDS in their name and your curiously overblown fear of polygamy?

i don’t think Texas “stomps parents rights” in comparison with other states or the federal government. american society has decreed that children are not property and thus parental rights are necessarily limited. family law is vast and complex and most people on the losing end feel it unfair.

i would be just as vocal about branch davidians and any other group that assigns and reassigns families. THAT is to me even more significant that polygamy (which is still illegal and immoral) this method of practicing polygamy in my opinion is enslavement and all kinds of human rights are being violated both in the assignments and especially in the reassignments. the exile of the boys is something i find atrocious. why do you find fear of polygamy curious or overblown? what is worth defending about it? perhaps my time in the middle east followed by my experiences in Texas seeing branch davidians along with my research discussions over the years as a mormon looking at mormon polygamy have all combined to make me, as the father of beloved daughters, very VERY opposed to this ungodly practice. it is damaging to all.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Magick, I agree with what you have posted. The most damaging thing to children and families in this sort of situation is not what the Texas authorities have done, it is, instead, the immoral and illegal practices of this cult.

What is really at work here is not a “curiously overblown fear of polygamy” but rather a “not-so-curious overblown advocacy of polygamy” by at least some Mormons. Mormons are sort of stuck in a case like this. On one hand, they don’t want to be associated with or confused with those that most people would consider strange, but on the other hand, they cannot deny the historic practice of polygamy by the earliest members of their own faith, nor can they deny that the practice of polygamy is one of the things they expect to occur once they arrive in the Celestial Kingdom.

What many of the polygamy advocates appear not to understand, despite repeated explanations to the contrary, is that for those of us that oppose the practices of this cult, the biggest problem is not polygamy per se, but instead it is the other aspects of this case ~ particularly the sexual abuse of children. That’s not to say that the polygamy is not important, but, at least to me, the sexual abuse of children is more egregious.

In contrast, for the Mormons, this case seems to be all about polygamy and the sexual abuse of children appears to be an incidental concern. As a result we have this interesting assertion that those who advocate the protection of children are exhibiting “curiously overblown fear of polygamy” and this charge is made by those who appear to be so consumed with the concept of polygamy that the sexual abuse of children is sidelined as a minor issue. The irony is stunning.

 

[majick275]

what the homegirl from my ly adopted state said.

 

[rmcmullan]

In contrast, for the Mormons, this case seems to be all about polygamy and the sexual abuse of children appears to be an incidental concern. As a result we have this interesting assertion that those who advocate the protection of children are exhibiting “curiously overblown fear of polygamy” and this charge is made by those who appear to be so consumed with the concept of polygamy that the sexual abuse of children is sidelined as a minor issue. The irony is stunning.

This is inflammatory foolishness. Mormons who are interested in this case are interested in it because they support families and parents rights. To equate support for parents rights with support for sexual abuse is the sort of accusation that really undermines your credibility.

 

[MelanieAnne]

There are credibility issues here, that’s true. It’s not credible that those who claim concern for families and parents’ rights truly have the best interests of the children in mind when they advocate ~

• returning children to people who may or may not be their parents
• returning children to a place where they are at risk for sexual abuse
• returning children who have obviously already been sexually abused to a place where they are at risk for more sexual abuse
• returning children to people who use such tactics as waterboarding babies to teach them to fear their “father”, or whoever the male figure is that they are assigned to
• returning children to an environment where they can be assigned and reassigned at the whim of cult leaders

Advocating that children be returned to such an environment is not an expression of concern for families, it is an expression of acceptance the above listed practices, or, at the very least, subordinates any concerns about such practices to concerns about so-called “parents’ rights”. It basically says it’s OK to continue to sacrifice innocent children because we wouldn’t want to interfere with the perversions of adults.

And such people want to advance to become a God of their own world?

 

[elts1956]

I agree with your overall philosophy. I find I have question about the application of that philosophy in this case.

First, this is not LDS but FLDS, a different group.

Next, are you aware that within this cult that BABIES are placed under running water faucets until they scream and cry so that they are taught to fear their father? I mention that in relationship to your theory about a “loving stable home”.

As someone who held her first grandchild yesterday, I know that I would no doubt do violence against anyone who attempted such a thing on my granddaughter. I trust that your definition of a “loving stable home” does not include one that accepts the waterboarding of babies.

Well I should hope not. I spoke only from personal experience of being acquainted with several LDS families who seem quite sane and loving.

 

[elts1956]

so how loving and stable is it when women and children are “reassigned” new husbands and fathers at the whim of the leaders? what about when the older boys are exiled to ensure enough girls for the harems of the old men? what about being “assigned” to be a wife at 12? not to mention the harm of being denied education and freedom and being brainwashed out on the compound so that you lack the ability to make informed decisions?

I think the children are very much in harms way on that ranch. with all the “reassignments” and deceit about identities it’s pretty hard to tell what “families” to return them to anyway.

Just trying to look at it from the child’s point of view. That isn’t done often enough.

 

[RC_Matt]

There are credibility issues here, that’s true. It’s not credible that those who claim concern for families and parents’ rights truly have the best interests of the children in mind when they advocate ~

• returning children to people who may or may not be their parents
• returning children to a place where they are at risk for sexual abuse
• returning children who have obviously already been sexually abused to a place where they are at risk for more sexual abuse
• returning children to people who use such tactics as waterboarding babies to teach them to fear their “father”, or whoever the male figure is that they are assigned to
• returning children to an environment where they can be assigned and reassigned at the whim of cult leaders

Advocating that children be returned to such an environment is not an expression of concern for families, it is an expression of acceptance the above listed practices, or, at the very least, subordinates any concerns about such practices to concerns about so-called “parents’ rights”. It basically says it’s OK to continue to sacrifice innocent children because we wouldn’t want to interfere with the perversions of adults.

And such people want to advance to become a God of their own world?

That’s a pretty good summary of the issues. I would also add that the cult’s revered leader, prophet and teacher is currently in prison for sex crimes against children, is currently facing trial for more of the same, and that these crimes relate specifically to cult practices. That alone should be enough to give people a clue that something is very amiss here (DUH!!!). How any rational human being could advocate returning children to this environment, prior to the conclusion of a very thorough investigation by CPS, absolutely baffles me. Polygamy is NOT the issue, if consenting ADULTS want to shack-up and do whatever, that’s on them, who cares. The issue is child abuse and, essentially, sexual slavery. It seems that some people in here are so focused on protecting the polygamous lifestyle that anything is acceptable if it serves to achieve that end. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, these are the same people, albeit with a different political agenda, who have brought us a society where we have abortion on demand and where dudes marry other dudes.

 

[why_me]

The child welfare authorities weren’t concerned about that when they grabbed the kids in the first place. They just hauled off anyone who they thought looked like a kid, without bothering to ask questions about who was who. If the child welfare authorities had checked records and IDs at the time, they would not have been forced later to admit that some of these “kids” were up to 27 years old!

I say the state should release to the FLDS church authorities all the kids who are clearly not at risk and let the FLDS community sort it out. And I do mean ALL the kids whose status is undisputed, not just the kids of the 38 mothers who were named in the hearing before the State Supreme Court.

The State of Texas has laws setting age limits for marriage and sexual consent, and those laws need to be enforced, but this was waaayyy too heavy-handed.

The state of texas saw great publicity in this case. And so, they acted the way they did. Storm a compound, confiscate the children, claim wholescale abuse and watch the news coverage.

The only problem is: no one in authority reflected about the consequences of such actions. They just saw a great news story. And of course, prejudice entered the picture based on previous news stories about the flds.

 

[why_me]

Just trying to look at it from the child’s point of view. That isn’t done often enough.

And you were correct. The state should not have taken all the children away from their parents based on their religion. Rather they should have sought individual action with each family to see if abuse was done. And not a blanket confiscation of all children. The children were definitely traumatized by the state’s action.

 

[why_me]

Mormons are sort of stuck in a case like this. On one hand, they don’t want to be associated with or confused with those that most people would consider strange, but on the other hand, they cannot deny the historic practice of polygamy by the earliest members of their own faith, nor can they deny that the practice of polygamy is one of the things they expect to occur once they arrive in the Celestial Kingdom.

Mormons are not stuck on this case. What many mormons may be concerned with is the blanket abuse of rights as committed by the state of texas. Unfortunately there are some on this thread that just can not see it until it happens to them.

Mormons do not deny their polygamous history. In fact, many mormons are proud of their past history. Nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[distracted]

Seriously… I don’t think anyone is “gay”… I think there are people who have a same-sex attraction but of those, some get beyond it and some don’t… Things get complicated when you begin to call yourself gay… 'cause then you tend to act accordingly… “As a man thinketh, so is he…”

Then there is that saying about how a person tends to become what he pretends to be…

Anyway, my main point is tht i get tired of gay people saying that they can’t help being that way… for one thing, i don’t think they try very hard NOT to be that way …