Res Ipsa wrote:Rosebud wrote:I don't know.... this seems pretty similar to what I've heard mainstream Mormon victims from Salt Lake, Davis and Utah counties report.
Namely: Removal from home and safety, being called different names, other kids around, several adults, sexual acts with adults and kids, etc., inclusion of religious storylines and/or doctrines at times, etc. lots of physical pain intentionally inflicted, etc.
in my opinion, the problem is that "ritual," "Satanic," etc. are both red herrings. Doesn't matter what idiotic ideas perpetrators may or may not have had or if, how and when perpetrators used religious concepts as part of the abuse. In the end, it's all a fairly simple and very disgusting crime. It's child abuse, plain and simple.
I don't think we need to conflate anything because there's nothing to conflate.
It seems to me that it is very different from the allegations made in the 1980s. Sure, all abuse is bad. But there is a world of difference between what I see alleged in the FLDS complaint and what I see alleged from back in the '80s among populations of LDS. The cases in the '80s involving Barbara Snow alleged bizarre rituals including human sacrifce, eating feces, etc. And the rituals themselves bore little resemblance to LDS theology. In the case of the FLDS, we can tie the origin of the rituals involved to the head of the sect. They are alleged to be an outgrowth of the longer standing practice of men having sex with underaged girls. Further, they are alleged to be an extension of the religious doctrines of the FLDS sect. Unless we're just going to talk about all of the incidents we've been looking at with the generic labels "sex abuse," then I think it makes sense to differentiate the FLDS lawsuit from the allegations in the 1980s.
My thought is that it's a mistake to associate reports from mainstream Mormon communities solely with mainstream Mormon religious belief. I would also not assume that all people who may have been part of the alleged crimes were also posing as active Mormons -- some would have been and some wouldn't have been. Some could have been "anti-Mormons" or "never-Mormons."
The FLDS people tend to keep to themselves, isolated from other communities. Mainstream Mormons do not, or at least not as much. This difference in the two cultures does not necessarily mean there was a major difference in the techniques used to commit the alleged crimes, the human psychological vulnerabilities that were allegedly intentionally exploited in order to commit the crimes, or the ultimate benefits alleged perpetrators received and alleged victims suffered during the alleged crimes.
That said, I have heard reports of alleged rituals from mainstream LDS alleged victims that do resemble LDS theology.... especially the use of rooms that resemble the rooms in the older temples, and the use of the temple ceremony, sacred words from the veil ceremony, and going through the veil to the Celestial kingdom to have sex with God.
And I have heard victims report that their alleged perpetrators allegedly dressed up as Santa Clause.
I see it all as pretty much the same. I don't care if perps dressed up in white robes or a red fuzzy hat with a white pom pom on top. No matter what alleged perps allegedly dress in, the logical purpose would have been to discredit victim reports if victims ever remembered. And it's not at all uncommon for people to "get off" sexually through role play. Apologies for the crude words, but this isn't all that far fetched.
As for the human sacrifice, my guess, based on what I've observed, would be that a likely possibility is that alleged perpetrators convinced small children they were killing babies when in actuality, dolls were used. I would guess, based on common perpetrator patterns, that the murder of "babies" was used as a shaming tactic. "Look how evil you are! You're a murderer. If you tell anyone, you and your whole family will go to jail for the rest of your lives!" etc.
But when this sort of thing was reported by adults who, while they were remembering the incidents that occurred while they were small children, still believed they had actually killed babies (when they hadn't). My guess would be that some of the therapists, who were themselves traumatized just by listening to all of this and believing it and were not necessarily the most skilled critical thinkers in the world, took the reports too literally and started freaking out and making all sorts of wild and false accusations. This further discredited victims, who were, for all intents and purposes, very confused themselves. And rightly so. Why wouldn't they be?
Thus, valid proof of true false memories. But that didn't make the whole kit and caboodle false.
For what it's worth, I haven't ever heard a victim report killing an older child or an adult. That again leads me to think that it's possible that doll babies could have been used. A doll adult? Less likely and likely less convincing -- even to a small child. Adult dolls would be harder to come by and harder hide as well. But I'm moving into the realm of speculation here for sure....
As for the reports of children being forced to kill kittens, that could have really happened, in my opinion. "Look, you're evil. You murdered a kitten! Now squeeze it and drink its blood." Sorry, but there are a lot of very horrible people in this world who really will treat small children this way. It sucks to consider taking this seriously, but if there's any reality to it, not taking it seriously means completely discrediting and abandoning the people who need the most support. in my opinion, good people need to at least give this possibility a few moments' thought.