quote: they are trying to keep all of them in a five-county area, so that they are all within easy driving distance of therapists, lawyers, and social workers that they have to all meet with weekly. So, we're not talking about the entire state of Texas absorbing these kids, but rather a small section of Texas.
The AP reported early this morning that the kids will be moved into 16 different facilities that are located all over Texas.
quote:CPS said in its placement plan — attached to Walther's order — that it will try to place mothers under 18 with their children and to keep sibling groups together. Some of the families may have dozens of siblings.
Boys ages 8 and older will likely be placed in a setting similar to that where dozens of teen boys were taken last week, a Boys Ranch near Amarillo in the Texas Panhandle some 250 miles from Eldorado.
The CPS document lists facilities all around Texas — as far as Houston, about 500 miles away — where the children may be placed in what is one of the largest custody cases in U.S. history.
posted
I guess they had to, in order to find room for so many people. It sure will make court proceedings inconvenient.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm on the computer where I can't link, but the AP is reporting that the phone number used to make the original call has been linked to the CO woman who was a "person of interest" last week but hasn't been arrested yet. Can someone else link it?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a link to the story. I doubt this will go anywhere. The girl who made the original call used lots of language that is specific to the FLDS church, according to a woman on NPR who was in a that church for many years, and only left a few years ago.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is anyone else bothered by the term "spiritual marriage" as used in these news stories?
I understand that they're trying to make the point that these are not legal marriages, but from the perspective of the FLDS there are the same as any other marriage, no? There is not a special category in their teaching for underage marriage, which is what the constant use of the term seems (to me) to imply. And to folks who don't agree with the FLDS teaching there's nothing "spiritual" about it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There has been a long history of the use of "spiritual marriage" with Mormonism that goes back to Joseph Smith. For the non-believer it has been a way to mock that marriages as insisting that they are, as you said, not that same as recognizable marriages. For believers it has been a way to contextualize the marriage rather than reject it as a marriage per se. Those against it use it as a pejorative and those for it as a description of its holy significants.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it is the term meant for marriage to minors. It is the term meant for marriages undertaken for spiritual reasons but are not consummated. I think.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the context. I still think that either of those motives (pejorative or describing holiness) would be inappropriate for a news reporter. I wish they'd find a different term.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, if that's the case then the reporters are definitely using the wrong term, since it most often seems to show up in a sentence about young girls being "spiritually married" to and having sex with older men. Or being pregnant.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that whatever the definition is (it seems to mean different things in different contexts), it is not being used appropriately by the news reporters.
I did find a cite to it in legislation from the 19th century. It is definitely a historical term.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're all in agreement that, in the FLDS church, men in their 40s and 50s are marrying and having children with 14 year olds, right?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Catholicism "spiritual marriage" historically referred to marriage without sex. In this case though, it seems that they were using "spiritual" to distiguish it from "legal".
It sounds better than "rape".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's statutory rape in pretty much all the 50 states, and it's institutionalized/sanctioned by the FLDS church, too. Is that precise enough?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
steven, I think it is only technically, provably, rape when the "bride" is under the age of consent. If there are older "brides" it would not necessarily be rape.
Though, for me, the moral distinctions among raising a child to believe that she must submit, forcing her to submit, and statutory rape are pretty darn fuzzy, the legal distinctions are likely more specific.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Texas officials believe another 25 moms at sect are under 18
1 hour ago
SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) — The number of children in Texas custody after being taken from a polygamist retreat now stands at 462 because officials believe another 25 mothers from the compound are under 18.
Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar says the girls initially claimed to be adults but are now in state custody. Earlier they had been staying voluntarily with their children at a shelter at the San Angelo Coliseum.
The official number of children taken from the ranch controlled by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has been rising since a state raid three weeks ago. One reason is that some mothers under 18 claimed to be adults.
Roughly 260 children remain at the coliseum. The others were bused to foster facilities.
posted
Until the last rewrite of the Idaho state constitution, persons "who believed in spiritual marrage" were not permitted to vote.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I noticed that in some of the "stock" footage I've seen on TV recently the number of blurred faces has appeared to increase... of course they should have blurred them all to begin with IMO.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess none of the local tv stations here in SL covered the protest. I'm a big Jazz fan, but I still think it should have been covered.
Posts: 358 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone catch Nightline last night? They made the state look terrible.
At one point during the seizure of the children, an FLDS mother asked if she could see a warrant or some documentation of the action; she was told that one of the lawyers had the document, and that she was not allowed to see it.
Just...wow. The state needs to start justifying their extraordinary actions. To this point, I don't feel that's been done.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Be leery of accepting any claims made by any woman from the ranch. I've heard interviews in which they've stated that they were unaware of the rape of underaged girls through "spiritual marriage"s to pedophiles. It is totally uncredible that those women could have been unaware that 31 of 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 are pregnant and/or already have children.
The "Austrian cellar" cases also makes me wonder how many FLDS girls have been buried in unmarked graves after being raped, then murdered for refusing to accept that the rape was a marriage.
quote:It is totally uncredible that those women could have been unaware that 31 of 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 are pregnant and/or already have children.
Do they celebrate birthdays? There are cultures in the world where people honestly don't know their own ages and girls and boys marry off when they become physically mature. I don't know if this might be the case for this group, but it's an idea.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The state needs to start justifying their extraordinary actions. To this point, I don't feel that's been done.
They haven't justified it to us, although it does appear that they justified the actions sufficiently for the courts.
Unfortunately, we don't have access to the information presented to the court or a rational for the courts decision. Under most circumstances where there had been accusatios of child abuse, I would say that they don't have any obligation to reveal those things to the general public. In fact, it would probably violate the child's privacy.
But this isn't an ordinary circumstance. This is a high profile case that's all over the news. The nature of the group involved alone arouses suspicions of unfair prejudice. Under these circumstances, I think that Texas does need to justify its actions to the general public. If they don't the public backlash is likely to hurt the ability of the state to protect children who are in imminent danger.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But this isn't an ordinary circumstance. This is a high profile case that's all over the news. The nature of the group involved alone arouses suspicions of unfair prejudice. Under these circumstances, I think that Texas does need to justify its actions to the general public. If they don't the public backlash is likely to hurt the ability of the state to protect children who are in imminent danger.
I agree, but I think it needs to happen after this runs its course in the courts. That's conditioned on proper counsel being provided for the parents and as guardian ad litem for the kids.
quote:The doctrine of the group makes it impossible to have unfair prejudices.
Not true. There are many unfair prejudices to be had against the group. The easy example is the children - there are many possible actions that could be "justified" by prejudices against this group that would be unfair to the children.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a quick question, if those who know don't mind answering. If you do, just tell me to shove off and I won't get upset.
According to this quote from CNN.com:
quote:The sect, which broke from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints more than a century ago, believes polygamy brings glorification in heaven. Its leader, Warren Jeffs, is revered as a prophet. Jeffs was convicted last year in Utah of forcing a 14-year-old girl into marriage with an older cousin.
the FLDS group differs from mainstream Mormons in the area of polygamy. Is that true or are there other areas?
There are fundamentalist groups of Southern Baptists out there that I don't agree with. My dad's best friend is one. They think drums are the devils instrument and women have to wear skirts all the time and must be completely subservient to men. I call them a hardcore Southern Baptist group. Is the FLDS similar to this Southern Baptist group (a hardcore version of the mainstream belief of that religion)?
posted
Yeah, the LDS church also teaches that women are of equal worth to men, and that while we believe in a patriarchal order, that does not mean that women must blindly follow orders from men in our families. We have an equal right to recieve revelation, direct our own lives, and make our own decisions, and "disobeying" our husbands isn't ground for a beating. In fact, our husbands are not only told it is unacceptable to beat us, they're told it's unacceptable to order us around; they should be the head of the household but should lead by loving example and gentle persuasion, never force or coersion, and should turn to their wives as equal partners in the marriage.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:they should be the head of the household but should lead by loving example and gentle persuasion, never force or coercion, and should turn to their wives as equal partners in the marriage.
Emphasis mine.
How is this not contradictory? If you're equal, isn't it impossible for one of you to be the head? Or do "household" and "marriage" mean two different things?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being head of my household means being wise enough to recognize that the heart of my household has an equally important role.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Being head of my household means being wise enough to recognize that the heart of my household has an equally important role.
Ah, so 'head' as a body part as opposed to meaning 'boss'?
In that case, I want to know who the kidney of the household is. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
That kind of explains the state's press, here. From what I understand, there is definitely a widespread, culturally approved, system of abuse within the compound in Texas.
I'm not approving their [EDIT]the state's[/EDIT] actions, but they make a bit more sense now.
[ April 29, 2008, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
That was the essential that broke them off, but after a hundred years apart, there are many other differences.
First, there are all the things that have come out in the past one hundred that the FLDS have not been a part of. The revelation on the priesthood, family home evening, the change into a worldwide church, correlation, area authorities, the creation of a couple more quorums of the seventies - all that stuff.
Then, there are all the practices that the FLDS have developed that are not part of the Church. I don't know hardly anything about the FLDS, but looking at the pictures, regular Mormons don't dress like they are from Little House on the Prairie and it seems like the FLDS don't have a lot of talks about equality in marriage.
So, while polygamy may have been the original difference, after a century others have surely arisen.
Contrast that with the Community of Christ church. This is the group that split with the main body of the church when Brigham Young took everyone West, and their contention is that polygamy was Brigham's idea, not Joseph's. I'm not sure what they do with the many, many accounts from and concerning Joseph's plural wives. In 150 years, although they started from the same place, the Community of Christ downplayed the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, and many other distinctive historical events and doctrines and become more and more like non-Mormon Protestant churches.
posted
Thanks KQ and kat. I figured it was something like that, but the CNN.com quote made it sound like this is the only difference. I knew that probably wasn't the case though.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is so nice when people ask instead of assuming that we're otherwise the same. Thank you for asking. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
brojack, FLDS is a cult that broke away from the Church of Latter Day Saints and has essentially remained a cult, most recently a cult of personality around Warren Jeffs.
What makes it a cult is its attempts to become a state in itself, cutting itself off from all other people and ideas, then forcing belief on all others. These beliefs are only partially documented, but mostly come from the "prophet" himself, sometimes on whim.
One thing I heard was that they teach the children to be scared of the color red. It is the Devil's color and anything red is to be feared as Satanic. Homes where these children are going must remove all the red that they have showing, and the caretakers must not wear red or it upsets the children greatly.
I listened to and interview on NPR yesterday when they talked to one of the "homes" (facilities, not a person's house) that was taking care of over 20 of these kids. The procedures that they were using seemed to be very well planned, emphasizing the well being of the children and not well being of the case against the cult. Trying to make things as similar as possible to the kids lives before they were removed was the goal (minus the pedophilia and statutory rape of course).
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: One thing I heard was that they teach the children to be scared of the color red. It is the Devil's color and anything red is to be feared as Satanic. Homes where these children are going must remove all the red that they have showing, and the caretakers must not wear red or it upsets the children greatly.
That's like the drums with this Southern Baptist group. I played the drums in high school and my dad's friend tried to tell him I could become possessed by the devil since I was playing his instrument.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It looks like lots of evidence of statutory rape, but it seems like there has been absolutely zero evidence of pedophilia.
Considering the lives at stake, that's an important distinction to make. It doesn't do anyone favors to go overboard on the accusations.
quote:One thing I heard was that they teach the children to be scared of the color red. It is the Devil's color and anything red is to be feared as Satanic. Homes where these children are going must remove all the red that they have showing, and the caretakers must not wear red or it upsets the children greatly.
Wasn't that in The Village? You sure someone isn't pulling your leg?
posted
THe FLDS is something new. The media makes it sound like this organization broke away from the LDS Church 100 years age. There have been people practicing poligamy outside the Church for 100 years. But they have been a very fluid group organizationally. I grew up in Davis County, and went to school with kids from several different groups and families often would change "allegance" from one group to another. The one trait that they seemed to have in common was "extra" knowledge that the LDS church was supposed to have abandoned. Sometimes it was "Blood Atonement",sometimes "Adam/God" sometimes antiquity of the Masonic movement and its roll as an "evil twin" to the true church, sometimes the role of satan in the government/comunist/democrat/(take your pick) or maybe Joseph Smith's literal descent from Jesus, through Mary Magdaline. Heber Jentsch, the present leader of the Scientologists is from just such a family background. I am unpleasently reminded of my discussions with my "fundamentalist" friends, nowdays, when I hear Mormons expound on various "Hobby Beliefs". You just have to watch those Mormons, They start out eating brown bread and voting Republican, and before you know it, they have three wives and can cure cancer with mental telepaphy. The long dresses, cowboy shirts, communal living, fundamentalist temple and child brides are all developments within the last couple of decades.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: One thing I heard was that they teach the children to be scared of the color red. It is the Devil's color and anything red is to be feared as Satanic. Homes where these children are going must remove all the red that they have showing, and the caretakers must not wear red or it upsets the children greatly.
Also it is the bad colour and will attract the creatures that live in the woods.
edit: oops, kat got there first with the movie reference.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"The color 'RED' is not acceptable for clothing," the memo stated. FLDS church members believe red is reserved for Jesus Christ because when he returns, he will be wearing red robes.
That is a far cry from it being the devil's color. In fact, it is the exact opposite of being the devil's color. I think Hatrack can do better than the general public concerning information about the group.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
"The color 'RED' is not acceptable for clothing," the memo stated. FLDS church members believe red is reserved for Jesus Christ because when he returns, he will be wearing red robes.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
