posted
Thanks, Dag. It is interesting to me that, in that case, so much importance was given to the participants opinion on whether or not they were married. That they went through a ceremony that looked like a wedding, with a white dress, said vows and so forth. It strikes me a curious that even though the state wouldn't recognize it as a legal marriage, it still has the consequences of a legal marriage.
I wonder if a gay polygamist would be breaking bigamy laws...
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
just_me - apparently you haven't read the statistics about how oftenpreg nancy is a generational repeat condition. It doesn't seem to be a factor of the community much at all. And as far as the marriage laws being related to the FLDS, I'm not sure WHERE I read it, but I definitely remember reading a news story (from back in 2005 - not from now) that sited the building of the FLDS ranch as the reason for the switch. Before that, I knew several 14 & 15 year old girls who were "married off" to Mexican men in order to get immigration papers.
I am not going to pretend to say that I think forcing girls into marriage and sex as teenagers is good either. However, there has been little proof that very many girls below 16 were forced into it. I think that while 16 may be young, a 16-year-old is capable of making their own decisions, espescially if they're raised to think that 16 is an "adult" age. Also, while the news keeps talking about middle aged men as fathers, they don't have any proof yet that that's the case. Many teen and young adult boys were at the ranch.
More than that, however, is the simple fact that they had no good reason to go in there. Even the most routine investigation of their source would have told them it was a hoax. The truth is, they didn't bother to investigate because they WANTED to go in and take the kids away. They think the FLDS people are WRONG and so they don't want any kids being raised to think that way of life is right. As soon as they had the slightest pretense of a legal excuse, they pounced - and that is WRONG!
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:More than that, however, is the simple fact that they had no good reason to go in there. Even the most routine investigation of their source would have told them it was a hoax.
Ana anonymous tip that someone is being raped and choked isn't enough reason for the police to enter and investigate?
quote:The truth is, they didn't bother to investigate because they WANTED to go in and take the kids away.
How, exactly, did you arrive at this "truth"?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not actually ready to committ to this view, but I am not sure if the girls are capable of consenting, even the older women. They are told that saying no means condemning their souls to hell. If you believe it, then that is a far worse punishment then just threatening to kill someone.
I also am still waiting for more information before making a judgement about the police. The anonymous tip was made from a prepaid cell phone, so no name attached and the choice of words were appropriate for an FLDS woman. While the number was later shown to be connected to a women in Colorado, that is a different jurisdiction so that information taking some time to get is believable to me.
There are other aspects that concern me, but like I said, I am waiting for more information.
posted
I think that if you start saying that adult women do not have the capacity to choose because of their religious beliefs, then that is a horrifying precedent.
For that matter, then the men don't have the capacity to choose because of what they are being told. They don't have a choice but to take plural wives because if they don't, they are failing in their faithfulness and will be under condemnation. If the adult women have their agency dismissed, so should the men.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said, I am not yet ready to committ to that view. Though if a man told a women he would kill her if she didn't have sex with him, even if he wasn't holding a gun on her at that moment, it still would be rape (assuming she believes that he is indeed capable of killing her). And hell seems like worse then just getting killed. If saying no isn't an option, I don't think you can say yes either.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not actually ready to committ to this view, but I am not sure if the girls are capable of consenting, even the older women. They are told that saying no means condemning their souls to hell. If you believe it, then that is a far worse punishment then just threatening to kill someone.
If that's your opinion, then many a young person isn't capable of consenting to being confirmed in their given faith.
Not all, and probably not most. But many.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that if you start saying that adult women do not have the capacity to choose because of their religious beliefs, then that is a horrifying precedent.
Agreed. I'm even leery of the less drastic proposition that adult women who were subject to brainwashing* as children do not have the legal capacity to choose to act in a manner consistent with the behavioral goals of that brainwashing.
*I'm not making any statement about whether brainwashing has or has not occurred here.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying from a legal viewpoint, more from a moral standpoint. I think that if I convinced someone to sleep with me on those grounds, I don't see how I would ever convince myself I had not committed rape.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is why in some states it's illegal for clergy to have sexual relations with their congregants and in most religious bodies it's a serious professional ethics violation even if it's not illegal.
And why it's such a big deal in the widely publicized cases when it happens anyway.
Using religious authority to pressure someone into sex (even if there's a wedding first) is vile.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:in some states it's illegal for clergy to have sexual relations with their congregants
In those states, would it be illegal for an LDS bishop to have sexual relations with his wife if she's a member of the ward he's bishop over?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since many religions allow religious leaders to be married, I would assume such restrictions would only apply to sex outside of marriage. I believe most churches also frown upon marrying from within one's congregation.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:in some states it's illegal for clergy to have sexual relations with their congregants
In those states, would it be illegal for an LDS bishop to have sexual relations with his wife if she's a member of the ward he's bishop over?
No. And I can legally have sex with my husband, who is a member of my congregation no matter what sate we live in. And if the relationship was established before the other person joined the congregation it would be legal whether or not they were married. (But not condoned by most religions, obviously) But in some states it would be illegal for us (or the couple in your example) to get married (or date) within a certain time period if I/he had counselled him/her prior to marriage. (Serious counselling, on the level of a therapist, not general advice.) Those states class clergy acting in a counselling role in the same category as psychologists/psychoterapists.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, in some states, LDS bishops are not counted as "clergy" in the traditional sense, do not have the same expectation of confidentiality as traditional priests and ministers, etc., because they are lay ministers (at least last I heard.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the laws don't prohibit clergy from marrying a congregant as long as there hasn't been some sort of formal counseling? What about professional ethics? Are there groups that prohibit clergy from having sexual relationships with people in their church, period (if the relationship did not previously exist, that is)?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dating within your congregation is highly discouraged within mainline denominations. It's taught as a breach of professional ethics in most modern ethics courses. This is, however, a change from 40 years ago when a young pastor was expected to graduate from seminary, start at his first church, and marry the prettiest girl in the Sr. High youth group. (Slight exageration, but not much.) Since many of these clergy who started 40 years ago are still in active ministry, discussions at sexual ethics training (which mainline denominations require all clergy to attend periodically, partially for insurance purposes) can get pretty heated. When you have a significant number of respected older clergy who married either the church organist, the church secretary, or a member of the congregation and have been happily married and partners in ministry with their wives for 40 years, they don't take well to hearing that dating within the congregation is now considered wrong.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The anonymous tip was made from a prepaid cell phone, so no name attached and the choice of words were appropriate for an FLDS woman.
Given what little I've heard about the "person of interest," it seems to me that she has an agenda of some sort, since the other calls she is supposed to have made were also claims of some kind of domestic abuse.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Single men are not called to be bishops. I'm not sure if it is an official rule, but I think might be. It certainly is an unofficial one - I've never even heard of an exception, much less seen one.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ten piles of gender issues. Not a fan of the "women don't speak in church." thing.
I know, I know - there's an explanation, take it in context, yadda yadda. It's okay. Church is still true. I am not remotely interested in a defense of him. Please don't post one. He said some good things, although it turns out he didn't write Hebrews so so much for my favorite epistle of his. Still, in general, not a favorite.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:When you have a significant number of respected older clergy who married either the church organist, the church secretary, or a member of the congregation and have been happily married and partners in ministry with their wives for 40 years, they don't take well to hearing that dating within the congregation is now considered wrong.
No doubt. That would piss me off too.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really like Paul, mostly because he seemed to tend more toward the "stop being idiots!" school of preaching. Plus I find his conversion story rather inspiring.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the actual rule is "unmarried men" aren't called as bishops. I was under the impression that it was concievable, but unlikely, for a widower to be called.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dana, Out of curiosity I'm wondering whether the laws that prohibit ministers from having sexual relations with members of their congregation apply to lay ministers or only to professional clergy.
Ethically, I don't think professional status is the key question, I think the most relevant questions are how much authority the minister has (in the eyes of the members of his/her congregation) and whether the minister uses official functions of the position to pursue personal sexual relationships. Legally, however, I can see grounds for holding those who are professionally trained and paid to a higher standard than those who are not.
From an ethical point of view, I think using any form of power as a means to obtain sex qualifies as rape. I don't see much reason to distinguish between physical coersion, and coersion by use of religious or secular authority.
The biggest difference is that religious and secular authority can often be coercive even when that is not the intent. Hence a student, for example, might agree to date (or have sex with) a professor under the impression that refusing to do so could adversely affect their grades even if that was not the intent of the professor. A worker might agree to date the boss under the impression that this was required to get a promotion even if that was not the boss' intent.
For these reasons, its usually a bad idea for anyone in a position of authority to have a personal sexual relationship with anyone under their authority.
Nevertheless, I know that it is possible for a professor and a student, or a boss and his employee or a minister and a member of the congregation to have a true consenting relationship where no coercion (perceived or intended) is involved. The mere existence of an imbalance of power or authority in a relationship should not be considered proof that that power is being used coercively. If it were, every relationship where one party is physically strong enough to force themselves on the other (most heterosexual relationships) would have to be considered rape.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Those states class clergy acting in a counselling role in the same category as psychologists/psychoterapists."
There is seriously laws that make dating clergy illegal? I see this going against the Constitution on freedom of religion and right of assembly grounds. Has this ever been challenged?
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice that she said that it's dating people they've counseled, not just people they minister to.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I pretty much agree with everything you've said. But in addition to the power/authority issue there is another issue (or whole set of issues) when clergy date within the congregation -- what happens in the event of a breakup? What if the clergyperson dates more than one person in the congregation? (Not at the same time, but serially.) What if someone else in the congregation has a crush on the clergyperson but he/she is not interested? The potential for messy drama makes it not worth it, because it risks making the person totally ineffective as a pastor.
I don't remember the exact wording of the relevant laws (and my last counseling class was 7 or 8 years ago), but I think the phrasing was such that the role the person was acting in was the defining characteristic, not whether or not they were paid. So, to use an extremely egregious and obvious example, if an LDS bishop was counseling a couple who were considering divorce and then had a romantic/sexual relationship with the woman it would be illegal under that law. The paid/professionally trained part likely makes it easier to prove the counselling role, but I think a good case could be made for including lay ministers if they act in a counseling role as part of their expected duties.
Occaisional, as mph said the law only applies when there has been a formal counseling relationship. (The ethical guidlines of various denominations are tighter than that). And there is a time limit on it -- I don't remember for sure, but I think it was two years from the ending of the counseling relationship.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "Those states class clergy acting in a counselling role in the same category as psychologists/psychoterapists."
There is seriously laws that make dating clergy illegal? I see this going against the Constitution on freedom of religion and right of assembly grounds. Has this ever been challenged?
First, I don't think there are any laws which make it illegal to date a member of the clergy. As I understand it, it is illegal for the clergy to date a parishioner who they are counselling and not visa-versa. Whether or not it violates constitutional protections I suspect depends on exactly how such laws are written and enforced. I doubt such laws are ever enforced unless their is a complaint by the parishioner.
In the case of professor/student dating, laws that prohibit it essentially bar the "it was consensual" defense should the student ever complain of sexual harassment or assault. I suspect that the same is true for laws governing the ministry. The police are never going to walk into a restaurant and haul off the minister who is having a candlelight dinner with a member of his/her parish. The legal issues would only ever arise if the parishioner filed charges of sexual harassment or assault. On the other hand, their might be professional consequences even if a complaint is never raised.
In fact, there should be professional consequences even when complaints haven't been raised. After all, if the governing body knows that the minister (professor, boss, counsellor etc.) is having sexual relations with a parishioner (student, employee, client etc.) and takes no action we would certainly consider them complicit if at some future point in time a complaint of sexual harassment or assault were made.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. I just came back to edit to point out that it isn't illegal to date clergy, it's illegal for clergy to date [certain people in certain circumstances]. But Rabbit beat me to it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Rabbit, I pretty much agree with everything you've said. But in addition to the power/authority issue there is another issue (or whole set of issues) when clergy date within the congregation -- what happens in the event of a breakup? What if the clergy person dates more than one person in the congregation? (Not at the same time, but serially.)
I was thinking about a lot of these same issues in regards to Home Teaching in the LDS church. For those of you who aren't familiar, in the LDS church every family is assigned to a pair of men (or often 1 man and one teenage boy) who are supposed to visit the family monthly to leave a spiritual message and determine if the family has any material or emotional needs that ward might help with. Women are also assigned "visiting teachers", a pair of women who play essentially the same role.
In a place like BYU, where the ward is made up entirely of single young adult students, that means that single young men are assigned as Home Teachers to single young women. Even though "Home Teacher" isn't a position with any authority, I can see plenty of problems that would arise from dating your Home Teacher. Even the potential Home Teacher might ask his teachee on a date could make him less effective in his role as a Home Teacher.
Of course, if a guy really wanted to date a girl on his Home Teaching list, it would be pretty easy to get her taken off his list first. I'd be willing to bet that doesn't happen much of the time in your typical BYU singles ward.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know anyone who considers a home teacher to be anything like a counseling relationship. And while a home teacher could tell a girl that God has revealed that she should marry him, any man in the church could make such a claim just because they all have the priesthood. It would be "unrighteous dominion" of course, and I think the church curriculum does a good job of making sure people know that.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You would think-- and yet I still meet women who finally escaped from horrible marriages that started that way after years of abuse...
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That must be in the Jerkface handbook because I have had more than one guy try to tell me that.
It's false doctrine on the face of it - rules of stewardship for revelation still apply, and a dating relationship is not a family relationship. No stewardship.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I don't know what we can do about the general phenomenon of Mormon women seeing singleness as an unhappy outcome that they would be greatly blessed to avoid. It kind of comes along with the "Family above all" viewpoint, which... uh... I was blogging about this weekend.
I think we may need to season our enthusiasm for family with the times Christ talked about being a sword that will divide us from loved ones, or "if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out."
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Mormon women I know don't generally think that. There is more to the Mormon experience than just your experience, pooka.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I described it as a phenomenon something needs to be done about, in response to kq's saying she knew a lot of people, in response to my saying the church doesn't teach that.
I can only conclude you wish to disagree with me, so I'm done.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm telling you that while SOME think that, not ALL Mormon women think that and not even enough to make it a general phenomenon, so I would appreciate you not saying that they do.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would it really hurt to not use your own opinions as representative of the church as a whole?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
