MA&D's passionate love affair with the FLDS church

[_Alter Idem]

I still don't get the backlash against the Texas DCFS from the MA&Dites.

Hey MA&Dites, is it or is it not true that ALL the minor females were either being groomed to be statutorially raped or had already been statutorially raped?

Is it the doctrine and practice of the FLDS church to marry off the female children while still underage, or isn't it?

Does that constitute imminent jeopardy to those kids, or doesn't it?

If you'll look at how this thread has progressed, I think you'll see one reason why MADBers won't condemn the FLDS. Look at the number of posters who've used this discussion to bash Joseph Smith for "marrying" young girls. Look at the comments about "lying for the Lord". Look at how they've taken this opportunity to turn this into just more criticism of the mainstream LDS church.

With some LDS critics, all roads lead to "The LDS church is eviiiiiil!" Personally, I was hoping for a discussion about the FLDS without it degenerating into the same old attacks, but that's not going to happen as long as some posters have to interject criticism for the LDS church into every discussion.

Also, it is not a doctrince of the FLDS to marry young girls. It is not a problem with other FLDS groups like it is with Warren Jeffs' group. The AUB has denounced underage marriages (they are FLDS) and other groups like the Centennial Park FLDS also don't follow this practice. I think we need to be sure we understand that it is Warren Jeffs' policy that he has promoted that "no girl is too young to be married".

[_mbeesley]

I still don't get the backlash against the Texas DCFS from the MA&Dites.

Hey MA&Dites, is it or is it not true that ALL the minor females were either being groomed to be statutorially raped or had already been statutorially raped?

I don't know. I don't buy the DCFS's story lock, stock and barrel like you apparently do. But even if it is true, the Texas Third District Court of Appeal said that was insufficient to remove all of the children from their homes. Now, whether or not you agreed with the Courts decision, it does constitute at least one body of people who are not FLDS, LDS, or MA&Dites that has criticized the DCFS.

Is it the doctrine and practice of the FLDS church to marry off the female children while still underage, or isn't it?

I don't know. I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the FLDS Church. How about you? Or are you making a determination about what FLDS doctrine is based on something non-FLDS people have said? You wouldn't do THAT would you . . . tell other people what their doctrine is???? ROFLMAO

Does that constitute imminent jeopardy to those kids, or doesn't it?

Not according to the Texas Third District Court of Appeal.

[_mbeesley]

If you'll look at how this thread has progressed, I think you'll see one reason why MADBers won't condemn the FLDS.

Look at it another way. We're not condemning the FLDS because that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the conduct of the State of Texas, NOT the conduct of the FLDS. To the extent any FLDS member has allegedly abused a child, ALL LDS posters have condemned such conduct.

It is perhaps deserving of some minor recognition that we are over a month into this fiasco, and not a single criminal charge has been brought.

[_Alter Idem]

I think if it's truly the case that there is sufficient justification for the removal of all children from the YFZ ranch in Texas, that the US ought to pool resources and get the kids from Colorado City, etc. If the behavior of Warren Jeffs, etc. is sufficient evidence to warrant the forcible removal of children by CPS, then why can't they do it elsewhere? Why? Is it that Utah / Arizona are too scared, too poor, or what? Are the concerns of Utah and Arizona similar to mine? If I crank call them (I won't) will it be for the best for the children in CC? This whole thing is a huge complicated mess in my mind. It's not some simple thing where I can say that obviously the best decision was to remove the children from their homes given the history of underage marriage from that group's leader.

I think you are being hasty. The YFZ is the correct target and there is no need to move against the people in Colorado City in such a way. They don't live in a walled, guarded compound. They now have a police presence in town who are not FLDS. There are services for women and children to go to for help if they are being abused or wish to leave the group. The people who were left in Colorado City were those Warren Jeffs deemed "not worthy" to live in his little utopia Zion. That means they weren't slavishly following his every command. The group that went to YFZ are those who've drank Jeff's "koolaid" completely, They are the ones who pose the serious threat to their children's well-being because they place following Jeffs every command (no matter how bizarre or wrong) before the defense and protection of their own children. And, if any women or children wanted to leave, they can't because of the nature of their living arrangements.

Quote:
Why? Is it that Utah / Arizona are too scared, too poor, or what?



Too unmotivated.

It's not this. Utah and Arizona do not have the same kind of situation as the YFZ ranch to deal with. They have and the continue to prosecute cases when they come up. Utah's attorney general has made it his number one priority to prosecute Polygamists---for abuse, fraud, underage sex...but not for "spiritual" marrying if it involves consenting adults. I don't have a problem with this, and I'd be surprised if any of the liberal minded posters here want adults prosecuted for having sex and children with multiple partners they aren't legally married to. If we do that, then we'd have to condemn most of Hollywood.

Utah's authorities are salivating at the chance to get their hands on the mountains of evidence from the raid--they are also still waiting for a ruling on the evidence which was taken when Warren Jeffs was caught riding around in his RED(the color he claimed was Christ's color and noone else should have or wear any red. Hmm...Tells us a little about Warren's delusions of grandeur) Cadillac Escalade. So, no--the answer is not that they are too unmotivated. Just give them a little time. It is extremely difficult to get anything on groups that are so insular and it's practically impossible to put an informant in.

[_Dr. Shades]

Is it the doctrine and practice of the FLDS church to marry off the female children while still underage, or isn't it?

I don't know. I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the FLDS Church. How about you? Or are you making a determination about what FLDS doctrine is based on something non-FLDS people have said? You wouldn't do THAT would you . . . tell other people what their doctrine is???

I'm making the determination based on what former FLDS people have said. Everyone who has managed to escape has told a similar story about the inner workings of the group.

[_mbeesley]

Is it the doctrine and practice of the FLDS church to marry off the female children while still underage, or isn't it?

I don't know. I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the FLDS Church. How about you? Or are you making a determination about what FLDS doctrine is based on something non-FLDS people have said? You wouldn't do THAT would you . . . tell other people what their doctrine is???

I'm making the determination based on what former FLDS people have said. Everyone who has managed to escape has told a similar story about the inner workings of the group.

ROFLMAO!! STOP IT, STOP IT! YOU'RE KILLING ME!!!

I have seen nothing, nada, zilch, nichts from ex-FLDS where they have said that "it is the doctrine and practice of the FLDS church to marry off the female children while still underage."

And while we are on the subject, could you define underage for me? If state laws permits the marriage of a 13 year old girl under certain circumstances, would such a marriage be underage?

Note: From a personal point of view, I think in most circumstances 18 probably the earliest age a girl should be married. But I also think girls in a rural, agrarian society who grow up with a strong work ethic mature more quickly than girls who grow up in a modern metropolitan setting where the journey to the local mall is the most strenuous work they ever encounter.

[_mbeesley]

Read about the ACLU's passionate love affair with the FLDS here.

[_mbeesley]

Read about the Texas Supreme Court's passionate love affair with the FLDS church here.

[_beastie]

Beesley has a good point, which is that there are legitimate concerns about the seizure of all the children.

However, what critics are noticing is that the very same apologetics that have been used to obfuscate Joseph Smith' polygamous behavior are being used in behalf of the FLDS, as well. (see: you can't prove he had sex with these underage girls Jeffs married)

This is a complicated issue. We are a nation that declares freedom of religion, but there are limits to that freedom. We would intervene if a religion taught and practiced some form of physical abuse. In fact, we even intervene in some cases to prove medical neglect (denying children medical treatment). So freedom of religion does not ensure that people can do whatever they want under the guise of religion.

So I think it is quite reasonable for the state to try and determine just what level of sexual abuse is occurring in this sect, under the label "celestial marriage". This, alone, should make LDS squirm a bit, knowing that the state could have also reasonably investigated the early LDS church for the same reason. Whether or nor the state should have taken all the children is another question.

[_Alter Idem]

If you'll look at how this thread has progressed, I think you'll see one reason why MADBers won't condemn the FLDS.

Look at it another way. We're not condemning the FLDS because that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the conduct of the State of Texas, NOT the conduct of the FLDS. To the extent any FLDS member has allegedly abused a child, ALL LDS posters have condemned such conduct.

It is perhaps deserving of some minor recognition that we are over a month into this fiasco, and not a single criminal charge has been brought.

First, thanks for cautioning the MADBers about being "too celebratory" over the Texas Supreme court decision. I don't think many of them are aware of how their posts sounded...and they wouldn't know they were being talked about here since I doubt the majority posting on MADB FLDS threads read this board.

There was an answer to your query about the criminal investigation in today's Deseret news article on the FLDS. See here;

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700230555,00.html

Here's the relevant part:

A DNA sample was collected from Jeffs at the Mohave County Jail in Kingman, Ariz., on Thursday. It included a pair of cheek swabs and digital photos of the process.

DNA samples were collected from 603 adults and children involved on the raid at the YFZ Ranch to determine parentage, but the Texas Attorney General's Office said Jeffs' sample is not related to the custody case.

"That was related to the criminal procedures," attorney general spokeswoman Janece Rolfe said of Jeffs' sample. "That's a separate process."

A criminal investigation into abuses at the FLDS property has been quietly progressing at the same time the CPS case has imploded.

The warrant affidavit said that investigators seized marriage records and photographs during the raid on the FLDS Church's YFZ Ranch last month.

"Upon review of the marital records, also referred to as Bishop's Records, by investigators, said records reveal that Warren Jeffs married (name removed) at age 14, on or about January 18, 2004, in Utah," Gilbert wrote.

The criminal investigation moves on...and I'm certain there will be criminal charges...they just aren't on your timetable. They haven't even gotten the DNA results back. I'm afraid giving back the children may ruin any chance of prosecuting anyone, once they make the formal charges though. Does anyone really think that those who know they will be identifed as perpetrators or victims by the DNA results will stick around..even if they did sign an agreement? Of course they are going to disappear, along with their children so they can avoid prosecution. They don't want to end up in jail, losing their children. I'm certain that is why the judge is fighting to keep them from being returned. If she returns them to the ranch, CPS will have to put guards all over the compound and not allow anyone to leave, or they'll lose anyone who's going to be caught by the DNA results.

One good thing will come out of this; At least Warren Jeffs can't run...and hopefully(yes, it's a SICK thought, but it is the only chance to keep him in jail), he managed to impregnate at least one of those child brides he "married" so the state has some actual proof that he had sexual contact with an underage female. The only other possible proof is if someone among the ranch, either the victim or someone else actually comes forward and tesitifies to his sexual relations with underage girls, and I'm afraid the chances of that are just wishful thinking on my part.