Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

  • Thread starter Thread starter lovesMary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MelanieAnne said:
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.
Click to expand...
Lets be in favor of state’s rights. Lets say for example that a state goes into a community and removes children from their parents until it is determined that no abuse as occured. All children are removed within that community. Then, the state requires a dna test to make sure that all children are with their correct parents. Sound good? I will predict outrage will happen but then again, many children will be saved from abusive parents since abuse is rampant in quite a few communities or towns.
 
MelanieAnne said:
, 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.
Click to expand...
it sounds like the polygamy was forced on children, so in many cases, it was one and the same issues…
The news i watch (which admittedly isn’t very frequent) doesn’t seem to be very detailed… Could you please provide the posters here with the name of a good news source where one can get in-depth coverage??
Click to expand...
thanks…
Click to expand...
 
One of the best arguments against polygamy (as if we need one??) is that Mary had one husband, Joseph had one wife… and they didn’t even have sex with each other… much less someone else…

And then there is Jesus, who was married to no one…

Then there is St. Paul who said, basically, that it is better to remain un-married… because married people are concerned with the things of the world…

OUr three worst enemies are the world, the flesh and the devil…
 
why_me said:
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.
Click to expand...
Mormons are “stuck” in the sense that there is no easy “out” for them when a case like this comes up. They are torn between the need to distance themselves from polygamy and in so doing appear more “normal”, and actual Mormon doctrine, which still looks forward to a polygamous future.

As for the “blanket abuse of rights as committed by the state of texas” ~ if such a thing occurred, and that itself is arguable, it pales in comparison to the abuse of the children that has already been documented in this case.

Unfortunately there are some on this thread that believe that the so-called “rights of parents” (and in this case the definition of “parent” is very fluid) even if those “parents” expose their children to various types of abuse, trump the rights of children to be protected from such abuse.

It’s wrong to advocate the return of innocents to the care of their abusers.
 
why_me said:
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.
Click to expand...
why on earth would the state need/want publicity?
this was never a “great news story”.
why are folks prejudiced against the FLDS? it’s their despicable ACTIONS that are worthy of denunciation. the state did what it must to protect the children and stop this criminal organization from abusing Texas as a haven for their illegal and immoral activities. the mormons here just see it as an indictment against joseph smith and rush to defend without realizing the consequences of championing this unholy cause. you keep wanting to show common cause between mormons and catholics to protect the family yet here you go advocating the greatest abuse of same.
 
why_me said:
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.
Click to expand...
the religion teaches the abuse as part of the doctrine. the leaders assign these relationships and they constantly obstruct any attempts to investigate. the children are traumatized every time they get “reassigned” a new dad too. 12yo girls being told the prophet had a revelation that they are to be married to some old man probably have a hard time as well. but hey since they aren’t allowed and education and they are kept penned up maybe they think it’s okay.
 
majick275 said:
why on earth would the state need/want publicity?
this was never a “great news story”.
why are folks prejudiced against the FLDS? it’s their despicable ACTIONS that are worthy of denunciation. the state did what it must to protect the children and stop this criminal organization from abusing Texas as a haven for their illegal and immoral activities. the mormons here just see it as an indictment against joseph smith and rush to defend without realizing the consequences of championing this unholy cause. you keep wanting to show common cause between mormons and catholics to protect the family yet here you go advocating the greatest abuse of same.
Click to expand...
The state did it for publicity. They were strong handed for a reason. It was a sort of ‘shock and awe’ thing to do, and an act that would make national news big time. First the police threatened to storm the compound with weapons, the flds back off and the state demands custody of all the children. Why? Because the state wanted the news coverage.
 
why_me said:
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.
Click to expand...
mormons have to defend it as the plight of the FLDS is exactly the same as the early LDS. legitimizing this is required to justify JS and BY. there is no “blanket of abuse”. there is much to be ashamed of in polygamy. it is unholy and damaging.
 
majick275 said:
the religion teaches the abuse as part of the doctrine. the leaders assign these relationships and they constantly obstruct any attempts to investigate. the children are traumatized every time they get “reassigned” a new dad too. 12yo girls being told the prophet had a revelation that they are to be married to some old man probably have a hard time as well. but hey since they aren’t allowed and education and they are kept penned up maybe they think it’s okay.
Click to expand...
The court doesn’t think so. It was an illegal act. Children will be returned unless the state does not give up and continues to fight the case.
 
why_me said:
The state did it for publicity. They were strong handed for a reason. It was a sort of ‘shock and awe’ thing to do, and an act that would make national news big time. First the police threatened to storm the compound with weapons, the flds back off and the state demands custody of all the children. Why? Because the state wanted the news coverage.
Click to expand...
this makes no sense and you have yet to show motive. what does the state get out of publicity? texas is well known already and this isn’t exactly the type of thing that increases tourism or generates tax revenues. so i ask again why on earth would they want it? shock and awe? please…aimed at who? last time they had a case like this the feds jumped with excessive force and caused massive problems. they had to act. this is small group in teh middle of nowhere west texas. what possible shock and awe could happen and how would that be seen as a benefit? texas makes national news every day and on much more significant issues. who would want this on TV? only the FLDS benefit from publicity. they get free lawyers and sympathizers like you advocating legal reforms to allow them to openly practice their illegal lifestyle. the state doesn’t need news coverage.
 
why_me said:
The court doesn’t think so. It was an illegal act. Children will be returned unless the state does not give up and continues to fight the case.
Click to expand...
no you need to read the court ruling not the sensationalist spin on it in the media. it was not “illegal” and no charges will be forthcoming as a result. what was decreed (and the dissenting opinion is worth reading too) is that the state didn’t prove that removing ALL the children was necessary to stop the abuses that are known and effectively investigate the ones that are suspected. some of the children will be returned if the “parents” can show they are really the parents and if the FLDS agree to the court ordered lesser measures to protect the children and enable a thorough investigation
 
rmcmullan said:
washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/25/polygamist-sect-teen-denies-abuse/

Texas continues its pursuit of the FLDS through arm twisting and other means of coersion.
Click to expand...
The state is grasping at straws. I am sure that they will find one child that has been abused as is the case throughout society. But the state has lost its claim and is now most likely trying to head off massive lawsuits. But the lawsuits will eventually come unless the flds just decided to keep silent and go back to their normal lives.
 
why_me said:
The state is grasping at straws. I am sure that they will find one child that has been abused as is the case throughout society. But the state has lost its claim and is now most likely trying to head off massive lawsuits. But the lawsuits will eventually come unless the flds just decided to keep silent and go back to their normal lives.
Click to expand...
what lawsuits are you talking about? look up sovereign immunity. the STATE cannot be sued.
 
why_me said:
The state is grasping at straws. I am sure that they will find one child that has been abused as is the case throughout society. But the state has lost its claim and is now most likely trying to head off massive lawsuits. But the lawsuits will eventually come unless the flds just decided to keep silent and go back to their normal lives.
Click to expand...
What is interesting, if you actually read the article, is the typical behavior associated with those being abused, as well as the abuser is shown in the article.

Many people who have been abused are afraid or ashamed to admit to the abuse because of a perceived stigma attached to it. They are also reluctant because the abuser often threatens them with things like No one will believe you,No one will love you,If you tell, you’ll never see your family again. These are just a few of the tactics used by the abuser.

As for the abusers. Denial is key. Who would openly admit that they abuse children!?! The implication that there is pressure or influence being forced on the alleged abuse victim is clearly shown in the statement from the FLDS spokesperson.

"FLDS spokesman Rod Parker said ***he’s not sure whether the girl will be cooperative in her grand jury testimony ***or whether other FLDS children have been subpoenaed to appear.

*“If they’re going to be asked to testify against their parents, that’s a real dilemma,” *he said. "

The only option for this alleged abuse victim is to invoke the 5th amendment, refussal to show up, and provide some sort of compliance can lead to being held in contempt of court.

"The person subpoenaed to testify then is compelled to answer questions unless he or she can claim a specific privilege, such as the marital privilege, lawyer/client privilege, or the privilege against self-incrimination. "
abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

By the way, I totally agree with Majick275, he is right on target. The state of Texas does have Soverign Immunity, and can only be sued if it allows itself to be. Even if they do allow themselves to be, I sincerely doubt any jury would side with the FLDS.
 
twopekinguys said:
What is interesting, if you actually read the article, is the typical behavior associated with those being abused, as well as the abuser is shown in the article.

Many people who have been abused are afraid or ashamed to admit to the abuse because of a perceived stigma attached to it. They are also reluctant because the abuser often threatens them with things like No one will believe you,No one will love you*,*If you tell, you’ll never see your family again. These are just a few of the tactics used by the abuser.

As for the abusers. Denial is key. Who would openly admit that they abuse children!?! The implication that there is pressure or influence being forced on the alleged abuse victim is clearly shown in the statement from the FLDS spokesperson.

"FLDS spokesman Rod Parker said ***he’s not sure whether the girl will be cooperative in her grand jury testimony ***or whether other FLDS children have been subpoenaed to appear.

"If they’re going to be asked to testify against their parents, that’s a real dilemma," he said."
Click to expand...
You can’t just take away people’s kids on the mere supposition of how an abused child might behave. There must be some evidence. Otherwise you could take anybody’s kids aways, and then argue that they are not teling the truth because an abused child is conditioned not to reveal the abuse.
By the way, I totally agree with Majick275, he is right on target. The state of Texas does have Soverign Immunity, and can only be sued if it allows itself to be. Even if they do allow themselves to be, I sincerely doubt any jury would side with the FLDS.
Click to expand...
They don’t need to sue the state of Texas. It was not the state of Texas that took the kids away. It was the Child Protective Services that did that, and they certainly can be sued. They have to work within certain legal guideline. If they break those guidelines they can be sued. Here is a typical legal framwork under which they must operate:

Protective cases involve two questions: Is the child at risk of parental abuse or neglect? Must the child be removed from her parents’ care to protect her? In Texas, Child Protective Services must also show that “reasonable efforts have been made to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the child’s home.” Source

zerinus
 
There is absolutely nothing worse than the foster care system. That is where most children end up being abused. Many people who are foster care parents do it only for the money. To pull these little children away from their mothers and place them into foster care homes was (in my mind) criminal.
 
zerinus said:
You can’t just take away people’s kids on the mere supposition of how an abused child might behave. There must be some evidence. Otherwise you could take anybody’s kids aways, and then argue that they are not teling the truth because an abused child is conditioned not to reveal the abuse.

They don’t need to sue the state of Texas. It was not the state of Texas that took the kids away. It was the Child Protective Services that did that, and they certainly can be sued. They have to work within certain legal guideline. If they break those guidelines they can be sued. Here is a typical legal framwork under which they must operate:

Protective cases involve two questions: Is the child at risk of parental abuse or neglect? Must the child be removed from her parents’ care to protect her? In Texas, Child Protective Services must also show that “reasonable efforts have been made to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the child’s home.” Source

zerinus
Click to expand...
you’re british how would you know? CPS is an agency of the state. you can’t come after them for monetary damages.
 
zerinus said:
You can’t just take away people’s kids on the mere supposition of how an abused child might behave. There must be some evidence. Otherwise you could take anybody’s kids aways, and then argue that they are not teling the truth because an abused child is conditioned not to reveal the abuse.

They don’t need to sue the state of Texas. It was not the state of Texas that took the kids away. It was the Child Protective Services that did that, and they certainly can be sued. They have to work within certain legal guideline. If they break those guidelines they can be sued. Here is a typical legal framwork under which they must operate:

Protective cases involve two questions: Is the child at risk of parental abuse or neglect? Must the child be removed from her parents’ care to protect her? In Texas, Child Protective Services must also show that “reasonable efforts have been made to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the child’s home.” Source

zerinus
Click to expand...
Lets get back to basics here.

Child protective services is department of state government. Hence, the state of Texas.

CPS was acting on what they perceived to be credible evidence based on reports given.(Before you say it was a hoax from a woman in Colorado, that hasn’t been proven)

CPS went into the compound with a warrant. Warrants are not issued willy nilly. They have to go before a judge, explain why they believe they need the warrant, and then the warrant is either issued or denied. So, the “supposition” argument is now moot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top