quote:The long dresses, cowboy shirts, communal living, fundamentalist temple and child brides are all developments within the last couple of decades.
This isn't exactly true. While it is the case that there are a at least half a dozen polygamist sects that have split off from the main branch of the Mormons over the past hundred years, and that there are more independent polygamists than there are affiliated with any of those sects (there are around 75k, according to an Anne Wilde presentation I saw a year or so ago), the FLDS have been officially around since the 1930s, complete with a priesthood hierarchy and temple rites (though unlike the SLC Mormons, they've not softened the patriarchal thrust of the nineteenth century ritual.)
They've only moved to Texas in the past year or so, but they were down in Colorado City before that. It's probably more accurate to say that they haven't developed since then. They've been doing temple rites and so forth, though, for seventy years, and Arizona raided them back in the 1950s. Take a look at the photos photos there. Black and white, but not much else is different.
On the RLDS, they've acknowledged for forty years or so now that Joseph Smith did practice polygamy (though, like a lot of SLC Mormon folk doctrine, the myth's died hard among the laity). Many believe that Joseph became a fallen prophet, though this is not official doctrine. There's something to the "Protestantization" thesis, though I'd point out that 1)they use the Book of Mormon as much as the SLC church does, and 2)they've got 168 sections in their Doctrine and Covenants. Revelation's still alive and well there.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got an e-mail from my ward today looking for volunteers to help with young children and their very young mothers and I think it is with children from the compound. In the information it says that the children will consider any female wearing a long skirt to be "mother". They also need some jeans which they call britches and some Bibles (as the court hasn't decided if they can have book of Mormons yet). It is finals week though, so I won't be volunteering. That and they don't tell where we will be going, just that it will be a bit of a drive.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I know the person who sent it and she is very active in the foster program. If she says she worked with a bunch of kids and these are there needs, it is believable. And if she lied about needing help, she would get slammed royally at church forever. Also, to volunteer, you have to get a blood test, tb test, and let them do a background check. I just included the interesting parts of the e-mail in my first post.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be really cool if you did volunteer, though, and then gave us a little insight into how the children are(generally, of course). I'm sure this community would find that extremely interesting.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, I know nothing about foster care, but I imagine you're under some kind of confidentiality obligation.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought it sounded pretty cool, and maybe if they need people next week, I'll be able to do it. I don't know all the confidentiality obligations, but the e-mail is very vague on somethings so I am sure there are limitations there.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This whole thing just makes me so sad and angry whenever I see it on the news. I can't even tell you why excactly. I mean - what do I care, it's not like I know any of them. I'm just enraged that the state would take children away without even CHECKING the source first. I'm angry that we're not being told any actual facts about how old the girls are. (Between 14 and 17 is a BIG age gap, since 17-year-olds CAN consent to sex in Texas) I'm angry that my state passed a law forbidding the marriage of under 16-year-olds solely to deny the religious rights of a group, and that I knew NOTHING about it. Where on earth was the press coverage when this bill was on the table?
Of course, I don't agree with raping children. However, it's not like San Antonio (and the rest of south texas) isn't fully of pregnant teenagers! In my own home town there is a boy who has gotten two DIFFERENT 8th graders pregnant, once when he was 18 and then again when he was 19. He's not in jail! No one is taking his children away from their mothers just because they didn't press charges. Where on earth are the children's rights in all of this?
Grrr... I'm sure all of this has been said before, but my computer was broken througout most of the week this news was breaking and I just had to rant.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm just enraged that the state would take children away without even CHECKING the source first.
They didn't take the children based solely on the call. They began their investigation because of the call.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And it would seem awfully strange to put that limitation in as a denial of religious rights, when people can be married in Texas as young as 16 provided they have parental consent. I suspect that view has no basis in reality; the most common age of consent in the US is 18, and I think that might be it for most states.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm angry that my state passed a law forbidding the marriage of under 16-year-olds solely to deny the religious rights of a group
I haven't seen this anywhere.
Neither do I. But the law making the practice of polygamy illegal across the country definitely was designed with that thought in mind.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Texas law was changed in response to FLDS. The age of consent for marriage with parental permission in Texas was changed from 14 to 16 in 2005, the year after the FLDS came to Texas.
41 of 63 teenage girls (ages 14-17) were found pregnant, or were found to have been pregnant; that's significantly higher than the national average, I think.
If the state's data is correct, than I think it's obvious that there was abuse going on, and that this was an unsafe environment for those children. If their data is correct, I'm gratified that they moved in and cleared out this harmful situation.
BUT...I cannot shake the feeling that the state's case is becoming more and more desperate.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if they'll film the interrogations of the kids. Surely being questioned concerning events by people desperate to find something will affect the answers they get, especially since the kids will have been taken from their homes and shipped across the state and have their futures be uncertain.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"BUT...I cannot shake the feeling that the state's case is becoming more and more desperate."
Really? Because I myself can't shake the feeling that this groups is a slightly more benign version of the Branch Davidians. I certainly don't agree with how the FBI handled that situation in Waco, but that's not what's happening here.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, it isn't. There weren't guns and they didn't resist.
If they don't find solid proof of the necessity of wrenching babies from their mothers, I hope the FLDS sue the pants off of Texas.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:41 of 63 teenage girls (ages 14-17) were found pregnant, or were found to have been pregnant; that's significantly higher than the national average, I think.
Significantly. Moreover, there's good reason to believe at this point that this is being done not only with parental acquiescence, negligent or otherwise, but in response to parental wishes.
quote:Texas law was changed in response to FLDS. The age of consent for marriage with parental permission in Texas was changed from 14 to 16 in 2005, the year after the FLDS came to Texas.
Is there evidence that this was in response to the FLDS other than the timing?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If they don't find solid proof of the necessity of wrenching babies from their mothers, I hope the FLDS sue the pants off of Texas.
That's doubtful. A suit like that will not succeed based on a showing that the officers were wrong to take the children. A lot of leeway is given for mistakes made by officers.
Moreover, even the absence of solid proof does not necessarily mean that the initial seizure was illegal.
Ultimately, the judge's order continuing custody will provide a lot of cover for the officers. And the judge's decision is absolutely immune from suit for damages.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Unless, of course, the alleged victims are religious and dress funny.
quote: NEW YORK - Breaking with standards widely followed by the mainstream news media, the celebrity Web site TMZ posted a story Wednesday about a 14-year-old who's a movie star's son and an alleged sex crime victim, and it ran the boy's picture. ...
Almost all news organizations refrain from identifying sex crime victims, let alone show their picture, because of the stigma often attached to it, said Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the journalism think tank Poynter Institute. The Associated Press' policy is not to identify people in such cases.
quote:You mean, does the language of the law include "especially if you're one of the dirty FLDS"?
No. And you know I don't mean that, so I'm not sure why you would say that. None of the possible reasons I can come up with are at all pleasant. Perhaps you can proffer one that doesn't involve you intentionally twisting the meaning of my words to make your point.
quote:You can certainly pretend the timing was purely massively coincidental.
I haven't pretended anything. I asked a question. The implication of that question was that the timing of a law is not always indicative of the motivation for that law.
Many laws have legislative findings attached, and many times the sponsor of a particular provision will explain their reasons. Either would provide some evidence of the underlying reasons.
This was part of a fairly extensive overhaul of that section of code. Many of the changes could not possibly be construed to be related to the FLDS.
Given the many possibilities, and the many possible sources of information, I asked if there was additional evidence beyond the timing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the story is being reported as alleged sexual abuse victims, then it isn't right to run the pictures, no matter the source.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh! Then I agree. I thought you were saying that the media, because it has shown pictures of the children involved in the Texas bit, was being religiously biased.
quote:I'm angry that my state passed a law forbidding the marriage of under 16-year-olds solely to deny the religious rights of a group
I haven't seen this anywhere.
Neither do I. But the law making the practice of polygamy illegal across the country definitely was designed with that thought in mind.
Why is it that polygamists of this sort need to have sex with such young girls? I would not have a problem with any of this if the women involved were grown ups. And I don't think that I am alone in that. What is the religious significance of middle-aged men having sex with 15 year olds?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why is it that polygamists of this sort need to have sex with such young girls? I would not have a problem with any of this if the women involved were grown ups. And I don't think that I am alone in that. What is the religious significance of middle-aged men having sex with 15 year olds?
It seems that when child abuse happens some people miss the whole point.
When NAMBLA goes after little boys, certain people rail against homosexuality. And when groups like the FLDS abuse children, those same types of people rail against polygamy.
The issue, in both cases, is the child abuse. Not what consenting adults do in their private life.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:This isn't exactly true. While it is the case that there are a at least half a dozen polygamist sects that have split off from the main branch of the Mormons over the past hundred years, and that there are more independent polygamists than there are affiliated with any of those sects (there are around 75k, according to an Anne Wilde presentation I saw a year or so ago), the FLDS have been officially around since the 1930s, complete with a priesthood hierarchy and temple rites (though unlike the SLC Mormons, they've not softened the patriarchal thrust of the nineteenth century ritual.
You might technically be correct. But, if you look at actual persons you will see a lot of fluidity. "Members" move back and forth. You can take a look at the "history" any number of these groups and you will see the same names. Sometimes they are in a different order, but the heirarchy names are all the usual suspects. EDIT: The "temple" requirement often used to be "fulfilled" by joining the LDS Church long enough to get a recommend.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is it that polygamists of this sort need to have sex with such young girls? I would not have a problem with any of this if the women involved were grown ups. And I don't think that I am alone in that. What is the religious significance of middle-aged men having sex with 15 year olds?
I imagine that to preserve their way of life they have to get the girls invested in a relationship as young as possible. With a husband and children by the time they reach majority, they have little freedom to leave/rebel. Waiting for them to turn 18 would result in more of them getting out of Dodge instead of submitting to the traditions.
All of which only compounds the evil that they are perpetrating.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm angry that my state passed a law forbidding the marriage of under 16-year-olds solely to deny the religious rights of a group
I haven't seen this anywhere.
Neither do I. But the law making the practice of polygamy illegal across the country definitely was designed with that thought in mind.
Why is it that polygamists of this sort need to have sex with such young girls? I would not have a problem with any of this if the women involved were grown ups. And I don't think that I am alone in that. What is the religious significance of middle-aged men having sex with 15 year olds?
I personally do not think there is any religious significance. But rather then release my scathing opinion of the FLDS church I'll just say that when it comes to consenting adults I don't think the government is in the right making it illegal.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Should the government have the right to make it illegal at age 12? 8? At what point does society relinquish its obligation to protect children from sexual predators?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*confused* I'm not sure where your question is coming from, kmboots. He just said that the government should stay out of the way of consenting adults - not that how an adult is defined should be changed.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh! I thought you were responding to Blake Blade, who was not talking about the change of the age of consent laws.
I didn't realize that you were talking about age of consent laws because it seemed like you were arguing against proposals that no one has made.
I think 14 is too young for the age of consent laws. However, I think selectively enforcing the laws (taking away ALL of the FLDS children while leaving the children of 12-year-olds in San Antonio with their mothers) is definitely religious persecution.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blackblade in response to my question about sex with 15 year olds replied (in part):
"But rather then release my scathing opinion of the FLDS church I'll just say that when it comes to consenting adults I don't think the government is in the right making it illegal. "
It seemed to me that he was saying that the government was not right in making sex with 15 year old illegal. I don't understand his reference to consenting adults unless he is defing 15 year olds as such.
Maybe we had better let him clarify.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He has a scathing opinion of the FLDS. I don't think he was supporting the marriage of 15-year-olds.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you think that, in his opinion, the government was wrong in making illegal? If he wasn't talking about sex with minors, I don't have an argument with him, but I don't know what else he thinks the government did make illegal.
Or, again, we could let him clarify.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not have solid opinions on when a child becomes an adult. I think I am against 15 year olds being married off, but that is a function of my belief that maturation is taking place at a later and later age.
In the past I think people matured quicker, and today maturation has retarded.
I was talking about consenting adults being unable to be in polygamous relationships, not that these men should be allowed to force 15 year old girls into marriages and impregnate them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the clarification, Blackblade. I agree with you as long as all of the parties are adults. The government does not make having multiple sexual partners illegal as far as I know. It does not sanction more than one marriage at a time. I would not have a problem if it did, again as long as the parties were adults.
I do have a problem with the language "married off", though. I does sound like that someone other than the bride or groom is making that decision.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The government does not make having multiple sexual partners illegal as far as I know. It does not sanction more than one marriage at a time. I would not have a problem if it did, again as long as the parties were adults.
I would tentatively agree, but multi spouse marriages would probably have a lot of messy ramifications in other areas of law that were created with the assumption that a marriage only included two people.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would tentatively agree, but multi spouse marriages would probably have a lot of messy ramifications in other areas of law that were created with the assumption that a marriage only included two people.
It would destroy much of the usefulness of marriage as a legal construct, which derives from the fact that it provides a convenient default person for a host of contexts.
quote:The government does not make having multiple sexual partners illegal as far as I know. It does not sanction more than one marriage at a time.
Note that in some states, it is a criminal offense to live in a polygamous marriage-like relationship, even if one hasn't married more than one person.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a fact-based analysis. Here's an example of such an analysis from a Utah case:
quote:The undisputed facts establish that Holm stood before an official of the FLDS Church, Warren Jeffs (son of then-FLDS prophet Rulon Jeffs), with Stubbs at his side and responded affirmatively to a vow asking the following question:
Do you Brother [Holm], take Sister [Stubbs] by the right hand, and receive her unto yourself to be your lawful and wedded wife, and you to be her lawful and wedded husband, for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise, on your part that you will fulfil all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this holy bond of matrimony in the new and everlasting covenant, doing this in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses, of your own free will and choice?
¶ 30 At the ceremony, Stubbs wore a white dress, which she considered a wedding dress. Throughout her testimony at the trial court, Stubbs referred to the ceremony as a marriage. As mentioned, the ceremony was officiated by a religious leader and involved vows typical of a traditional marriage ceremony. See Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-6(1) (Supp.2004) (stating that religious officials who are older than eighteen and “in regular communion with any religious society” are empowered to solemnize a marriage). In short, the ceremony in which Holm and Stubbs participated appeared, in every material respect, indistinguishable from a marriage ceremony to which this State grants legal recognition on a daily basis.
¶ 31 At trial, Stubbs testified that following the ceremony she considered herself married. The facts show that Stubbs lived in a house with Holm, that Holm and Stubbs considered themselves husband and wife, and that Holm and Stubbs regularly engaged in sexual intercourse. Although no one of these factors is itself indicative of marriage, looking at the cumulative effect of the factors present in this case it is clear that the relationship formed by Holm and Stubbs was a marriage, as that term is used in the bigamy statute.
State v. Holm, 137 P.3d 726 (Utah 2006).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Right, it isn't. There weren't guns and they didn't resist.
If they don't find solid proof of the necessity of wrenching babies from their mothers, I hope the FLDS sue the pants off of Texas."
Kat, don't you think that Texas is smart to try to nip this sort of thing in the bud, given what happened at Waco? The Oklahoma City bombings were mainly caused by Waco. We probably want to avoid letting a religious group get to that point. Whether the state has handled this clumsily, or not, I wouldn't like to see them getting sued for trying to avoid another Waco or Oklahoma City situation. Or what do you think? Because I think this sort of thing needs to be nipped in the bud. The state is doing it's level best with a bunch of pretty crazy people, trying to give them their rights without letting things get too out of hand, and causing another Waco.
I think you're letting your religious feelings get the better of you.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: However, I think selectively enforcing the laws (taking away ALL of the FLDS children while leaving the children of 12-year-olds in San Antonio with their mothers) is definitely religious persecution.
I'm not sure if I missed something specific about the 12-year-olds in SA (I'm assuming you are referring to DDDaysh's post) but I can see a reason to be selective in the removal of children:
Case 1: A couple 12 year olds get pregnant by an 18 year old. They have the child and keep it but presumably they aren't living with the 18 year old.
Case 2: A bunch of underage girls have babies and continue to live with (or in a very small community containing) one or more men who have impregnated young girls.
In case 1 I don't see any higher risk of the baby being sexually abused due to its environment. In case 2 I do.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
