Mormons and FLDS

[ralphinal]

I would like to know if anyone here sees the raid against the FLDS camp, or even the prosecution of Jeffs, as being an attack on Mormonism as a whole. Do any Mormons you know of feel that way? Has the media been fair in separating the two groups?

What do you guys think? I looked around on some Mormon sites, and it seems like some are against the FLDS but feel that it is more about Mormons being attacked.

 

[BartBurk]

I would like to know if anyone here sees the raid against the FLDS camp, or even the prosecution of Jeffs, as being an attack on Mormonism as a whole. Do any Mormons you know of feel that way? Has the media been fair in separating the two groups?

What do you guys think? I looked around on some Mormon sites, and it seems like some are against the FLDS but feel that it is more about Mormons being attacked.

I don’t think it is an attack on Mormonism at all. The problem is that run of the mill Mormons have been slow to condemn the FLDS. The LDS Church seems to condemn them, but a lot of Mormons on various boards are defending the FLDS’ supposed constitutional rights! I doubt the Mormon Church is happy about that. Perhaps the Mormon Church would help themselves by bringing these people into church courts for sympathizing with an apostate group.

 

[ralphinal]

I don’t think it is an attack on Mormonism at all. The problem is that run of the mill Mormons have been slow to condemn the FLDS. The LDS Church seems to condemn them, but a lot of Mormons on various boards are defending the FLDS’ supposed constitutional rights! I doubt the Mormon Church is happy about that. Perhaps the Mormon Church would help themselves by bringing these people into church courts for sympathizing with an apostate group.

I agree. I also think that the fact that the media always mentions that the FLDS is not affiliated with the LDS is a good sign of that. I wonder how Zerinus sees this one.

 

[Tonks40]

I was just now speaking to a Mormon co-worker of mine, and she’s appalled at what’s going on at that FLDS location…not in support of them, but appalled at the abuse against the women. She’s adamant that they are not a part of the LDS church, and the things they are doing are not right.

 

[ralphinal]

I was just now speaking to a Mormon co-worker of mine, and she’s appalled at what’s going on at that FLDS location…not in support of them, but appalled at the abuse against the women. She’s adamant that they are not a part of the LDS church, and the things they are doing are not right.

That seems to be common. It just seems like there are Mormons who, when around more sypathetic ears, hold a position that they were targeted because of their religion and even though they dislike what they were doing, they sie with them on this

 

[J_C]

respecting media coverage i feel the coverage has been fair. most references I’v e seen call the compound people “polygamist sect” and rarely make any reference to them being church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Living in Salt Lake City South (aka Mesa Arizona ) and actually only 1 mile from the local Mormon temple I have a perspective on Mormon attitudes you will NOT find in the national media…ie, There is a LOT of covert sympathy if not covert support for polygamous Mormons, whether said polygamous are part of a schismatic group or just secretly within LDS “membership”

Its why FLDS was allowed to exist as a private fiefdom for decades in Arizona–because of the large number of Mormon state legisslators

 

[zerinus]

I would like to know if anyone here sees the raid against the FLDS camp, or even the prosecution of Jeffs, as being an attack on Mormonism as a whole.

No.

Do any Mormons you know of feel that way?

No.

Has the media been fair in separating the two groups?

Some have been, and some haven’t been. In the US they have been more fair than in some other countries. Here is a link to LDS news website on the subject:

newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/clarifying-polygamy-confusion

The links on the right hand of the page give more information relevant to the subject.

What do you guys think? I looked around on some Mormon sites, and it seems like some are against the FLDS but feel that it is more about Mormons being attacked.

LDS do not sympathize with FLDS; but we do not like anyone to be unfairly treated or targeted, FLDS or any other. It is still too early yet to say of they have been unfairly targeted or not. We will have to wait until the legal processes take their course, and then the picture will become clearer.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

Thanks.

zerinus,
Let us say, for discussions sake, that the authorities in Texas did behave unfairly to them. Do you think that the Mormon community will feel differently? I doubt that anyone really supports the actions, but could this create a new persecution mentality?

 

[zerinus]

Thanks.

zerinus,
Let us say, for discussions sake, that the authorities in Texas did behave unfairly to them. Do you think that the Mormon community will feel differently? I doubt that anyone really supports the actions, but could this create a new persecution mentality?

No.

zerinus

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

The FLDS did experience a “persecution” back in the 1950’s–several of the men were rounded up by Arizona authorities, did a little bit of jail time–and the publicity of these arrests caused such a back lash of “live and let live” and “they’re not hurting anybody” it eventually caused the then Governor to lose his re-election bid and the rest of AZ goverment to ignore Colorado City polygamous families (FLDS and others)

Fast foward into the “Great Society” welfare programs—and FLDS discovered tax dollars could be made to support their theology–all those multiple wives are officially “unmarried mothers” and welfare checks go end up being signed over to their “landlord”–eg, the father of their children.

This also occurs within LDS stakes and wards–an open “secret” that everyone knows about but no one follows up on–because LDS is politicaly powerfull in Arizona, and many (not all) mainstream Mormons still hold that the no-polygamy doctrine is best interpreted as “dont get caught”

 

[Casen]

As a lifelong LDS perhaps I can contribute here. I’ve witnessed three prominent views amongst the LDS community, not necessarily mutually exclusive, that might contribute to a perception of schizophrenic views… if you don’t delve a bit deeper.

First, there’s pretty good consensus that there were big problems within the FLDS community. Time will tell but the statutory rape issue is certainly worth pursuing and should be prosecuted. The FLDS should follow the law just live everyone else. I think most LDS believe this.

However, the fact that an anonymous call which was apparently bogus can result in the storming of a temple and immediate seizure of 400 children should scare all Americans, particularly religious people. We justify it in our minds because we think the FLDS are freaks… but what happens when the mainstream decides your religion is run by freaks? Are constitutional rights then thrown out the window under the guise of “protecting the children?” That particular principle resonates with mainstream LDS because of all the persecution our church received at the hands of our government not so long ago. Gosh, how long has it been since the Missouri extermination order against Mormons was rescinded?

Third, there’s a very strong bias in our church towards letting people believe and do as they please, so long as they obey the law of the land. We have 13 foundational Articles of Faith and # 11 says,

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Given that foundational principle and my second point about persecution and you’ll see why we have some sympathy towards unpopular religions. But again, laws must be obeyed.

Personally, I think the State of Texas made a big mistake in the wholesale seizure of those kids based on a phone call. Those actions will drive groups like the FLDS more underground and will ultimately cause more harm than good. Remember, the adults are all free at this point and their culture is to breed like rabbits. In two years there will be another 400+ new children… and you can sure as hell bet they’ll be even MORE careful and reclusive in the future.

The cautious and cooperative approach Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has used has yielded better results in recent years. What he’s been trying to do to protect children in these communities has all been thrown out the window by well meaning but uninformed Texas officials. They mean well but the long term consequences will be bad for children. That’s my humble opinion on the matter. If that doesn’t make sense I’d be happy to explain further.

 

[Paul_G]

Living in Salt Lake City South (aka Mesa Arizona ) and actually only 1 mile from the local Mormon temple I have a perspective on Mormon attitudes you will NOT find in the national media…ie, There is a LOT of covert sympathy if not covert support for polygamous Mormons, whether said polygamous are part of a schismatic group or just secretly within LDS “membership”

Its why FLDS was allowed to exist as a private fiefdom for decades in Arizona–because of the large number of Mormon state legisslators

I don’t know how you have come to these conclusions, but I’m sure you are unaware that most LDS live outside your area, in fact outside of your country. Where I live we are concerned with the welfare and proper treatment of children, if laws have been broken those responsible need to be held responsible. What I see however is that the state on, what appear to now to be false information swooped down and remove children with no individual proof, but treated the whole community as one. It would be like them coming to your neighbour hood and taking all the children in a three block radius because some anonymous caller made a single complaint about one individual who did not exist in your area.

Many looking from the outside who have a dislike for how this group conducts their affairs don’t see any problem with the states actions. That these people need to clean up their act and live within the law is to expected as good citizens, but what has happen here should be of concern to all people of faith that hold strongly in practice to their beliefs.

With the strong liberal climate in the US, could it not be possible, let’s say, that the some churches could be held in contempt of anti hate laws with their policy concerning homosexuals, for example. Here where I live, a church lost a human rights action against it, having to pay damages, because it would not rent out its facilities for a gay wedding.

As citizens of our countries it is our responsibility to insure that our government does not use its power to, under the guise of a noble cause, infringe with excess power and authority the rights of individuals without the due process of law. What ever the good folks in Texas thought they were doing, it appears to me, however to have been a well intentioned, but lawless act.

Paul

 

[Elric]

However, the fact that an anonymous call which was apparently bogus can result in the storming of a temple and immediate seizure of 400 children should scare all Americans, particularly religious people. We justify it in our minds because we think the FLDS are freaks… but what happens when the mainstream decides your religion is run by freaks? Are constitutional rights then thrown out the window under the guise of “protecting the children?” That particular principle resonates with mainstream LDS because of all the persecution our church received at the hands of our government not so long ago. Gosh, how long has it been since the Missouri extermination order against Mormons was rescinded?

Unless you are suggesting that the law enforcement groups involved made the anonymous call, they had no way of knowing that it was “bogus”. Even after the incident nobody can say for certain that it was a bogus call.

I think that the people who should be scared are those who are abusing their children, religious or not. The children were not taken because they and their parents practiced a “freak” religion, they were taken because they were in an abusive enviroment.

The constitution does not allow anyone to abuse children, that is most certainly not a protected right.

Im sorry, but I just cant follow that logic.

Third, there’s a very strong bias in our church towards letting people believe and do as they please, so long as they obey the law of the land. We have 13 foundational Articles of Faith and # 11 says,

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Given that foundational principle and my second point about persecution and you’ll see why we have some sympathy towards unpopular religions. But again, laws must be obeyed.

I didnt see the persicution you are refering to.

Personally, I think the State of Texas made a big mistake in the wholesale seizure of those kids based on a phone call. Those actions will drive groups like the FLDS more underground and will ultimately cause more harm than good.

Apparently there is a bit more to it than the phone call.

Remember, the adults are all free at this point and their culture is to breed like rabbits. In two years there will be another 400+ new children… and you can sure as hell bet they’ll be even MORE careful and reclusive in the future.

Once they have been done for child abuse (in fact they dont even have to be convicted), Child services groups can just walk in and take those kids as well. If they are deemed unfit parents, then they lose the privilege of being parents.

The cautious and cooperative approach Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has used has yielded better results in recent years. What he’s been trying to do to protect children in these communities has all been thrown out the window by well meaning but uninformed Texas officials. They mean well but the long term consequences will be bad for children. That’s my humble opinion on the matter. If that doesn’t make sense I’d be happy to explain further.

If children are being abused and you know about it, you have to act.

 

[MelanieAnne]

My daughter lives just south of Salt Lake City and she says the Mormons where she lives, in general, denounce the FLDS. There is no sympathy, covert or otherwise.

 

[why_me]

Personally, I think the State of Texas made a big mistake in the wholesale seizure of those kids based on a phone call. Those actions will drive groups like the FLDS more underground and will ultimately cause more harm than good. Remember, the adults are all free at this point and their culture is to breed like rabbits. In two years there will be another 400+ new children… and you can sure as hell bet they’ll be even MORE careful and reclusive in the future.

You made good points in your post, espeially here in the above. This brings to mind as to whether the state will allow these women to bear children. What happens now when a FLDS woman becomes pregnant? Does the state step in and confiscate the baby?

The state of Texas blew this one big time. The yahoo attitude of the state will eventually backfire. Much depends on the attitude of the women. If there is a massive exodus of the women from the flds and they eventually begin to relate horror stories, the state will claim victory. But if the opposite happens, the state of texas will have a lot of egg on its face.

 

[twopekinguys]

Unless you are suggesting that the law enforcement groups involved made the anonymous call, they had no way of knowing that it was “bogus”. Even after the incident nobody can say for certain that it was a bogus call.

I think that the people who should be scared are those who are abusing their children, religious or not. The children were not taken because they and their parents practiced a “freak” religion, they were taken because they were in an abusive enviroment.

The constitution does not allow anyone to abuse children, that is most certainly not a protected right.

Im sorry, but I just cant follow that logic.

I didnt see the persicution you are refering to.

Apparently there is a bit more to it than the phone call.

Once they have been done for child abuse (in fact they dont even have to be convicted), Child services groups can just walk in and take those kids as well. If they are deemed unfit parents, then they lose the privilege of being parents.

If children are being abused and you know about it, you have to act.

Very well said!!

I would also be interested in how these people think the State of Texas should have handled it. They obviously think they were wrong to do this the way they did, but haven’t offered any different options.

Again, very well said.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Very well said!!

I would also be interested in how these people think the State of Texas should have handled it. They obviously think they were wrong to do this the way they did, but haven’t offered any different options.

Again, very well said.

It would appear from the posts of some that their solution would have been to leave the children there in the compound unless and until someone had a videotape of one of the men raping one of the little girls in the middle of the street in broad daylight. And even then, some would argue that only that one child should be removed.

Once upon a time on the radio I heard someone who is well known for their child advocacy state that they believed that there was a significant segment of our society that had as a goal the legalization of having sex with children. I thought at the time that the statement was way “over the top”. But from the complacent responses of some posters to this and related threads, I’m not so sure. While they may not be interested in pedophilia themselves, it would appear that many people find it at least tolerable in other adults.

Anyone who advocates that these children should be left in a situation where they are exposed to child rape is, at least, implicitly tolerating child rape.

 

[MementoMori3283]

In Europe, Belgium I believe, there is a political party that advocates the right of sexual relations with children. They are, for the most part, ignored because people believe they will never gain control of any legislative positions, while others consider it their right to their own belief system.

Religious freedom being important, just laws should not be discarded in pursuit of these religious “freedoms”.

 

[twopekinguys]

Thank

It would appear from the posts of some that their solution would have been to leave the children there in the compound unless and until someone had a videotape of one of the men raping one of the little girls in the middle of the street in broad daylight. And even then, some would argue that only that one child should be removed.

Once upon a time on the radio I heard someone who is well known for their child advocacy state that they believed that there was a significant segment of our society that had as a goal the legalization of having sex with children. I thought at the time that the statement was way “over the top”. But from the complacent responses of some posters to this and related threads, I’m not so sure. While they may not be interested in pedophilia themselves, it would appear that many people find it at least tolerable in other adults.

Anyone who advocates that these children should be left in a situation where they are exposed to child rape is, at least, implicitly tolerating child rape.

Thank you!!! I thought I was the only one singing this song. I have been saying all along that the state is/was responsible for protecting ALL of the children in this situation. Not just the ones being abused, but also those who may end up being abused.

I am so glad I am not alone in this thought.