Texas court to state: Send the FLDS kids home
posted at 6:37 pm on May 22, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
They may be in danger of sexual abuse but they’re not in imminent danger, which is (currently) the only statutory grounds for seizing custody. Your move, state legislature:
“Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse by grooming boys to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and raising girls to be victims of sexual abuse … there is no evidence that this danger is ‘immediate’ or ‘urgent’,” the court said.
“Evidence that children raised in this particular environment may someday have their physical health and safety threatened is not evidence that the danger is imminent enough to warrant invoking the extreme measure of immediate removal.”
The court said the state failed to show that any more than five of the teenage girls were being sexually abused, and offered no evidence of sexual or physical abuse against the other children. Half the youngsters taken from the ranch were under 5. Only a few dozen are teenage girls.
The court also said the state was wrong to consider the entire ranch as a single household and to seize all the children on the grounds that some parents in the home might be abusers.
Bigamy is illegal in Texas; bigamy on an institutional scale like this would, one might think, be sufficient grounds to remove children from the environment. If the state legislature makes that claim with a new bill, we’re bound to be see a constitutional challenge to the statute citing the holding in Lawrence v. Texas about “intimate, adult consensual conduct” being constitutionally protected. Is this the case that finally legalizes polygamy — an instance of suspected child abuse by a radical Mormon sect? Or will the court that decides it duck the question by separating out child welfare (which deals with people who aren’t legally autonomous) from issues of private personal conduct vindicated by Lawrence (which deals with people who are)? Stay tuned!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
And I encourage you to do your research. I never said you worship Smith. But he is a “prophet” and so was Young. Both took child brides, and both broke the law.
Looks like your research was a little shallow, but it is to late now. You can never accept the facts, to do so would tear the church apart.
Your faith does not come from the church, but from Christ, try to grasp that.
Talking about an incident many thousands of years ago and comparing it to 1850, who is taking what out of context? You think Abraham is compared to Smith and Young taking a child brides (and having sex which is rape)in 1850 and later are the same? (btw, is the harsh truth character assasination)
That is what mortifies me, to think you condone the raping of a child, just to maintain your faith. You seem like a good man.
That is the paradox of the LDS, such good people, defending such evil people.
The admitting that Smith and Young were false prophets will be an uplifting and a great gift to you and your family.
Pray about it, and pray for the young souls they destroyed.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 9:09 PM
That is two mis-quotes, now either you are really stupid,or you can’t read.
What part of this
didn’t you understand?
Sheesh, goodnight, you are over the top…
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 9:14 PM
Don’t bother, MormonDoc. while I enjoy some of r2b’s posts, he’s got a serious case of LPDS (living prophet derangement syndrome). When the topic turns to Smith and Young, he goes into “Loose Change” territory.
sulla on May 22, 2008 at 9:14 PM
sulla
I see that. Apparently the battle was lost before I began it. Thanks for the advice.
Mormon Doc on May 22, 2008 at 9:19 PM
sulla
The great loss for me is on a personal level when I leave a conversation like this. I know how dramatic and powerful the process of embracing Christ has been for me and the huge change it has made in my life. When I consider how woefully inadequate my attempts are to effectively articulate that important message I realize that I have let them down and more importantly, I have let down my Heavenly Father.
There was an officer I served with in the military who used these exact same arguments. He spent more time reading about the LDS faith than I did. Unfortunately he was getting his stufffrom the same anti-LDS literature business that is helping to inform some of the opinions on this blog.
I wish I was anti-LDS sometimes. There seems to be a lot of money in it. : )
Mormon Doc on May 22, 2008 at 9:27 PM
Where if the evidence that J Smith had a child bride?
elBarto on May 22, 2008 at 9:28 PM
r2b, well since I already showed the first case, lets go through the second shall we?
You wrote:
Governor Boggs issued the infamous Extermination Order.
Wrong as that was, it was because? Could it have been polygamy?
I think that pretty much seals the case as to if polygamy was against the law.
And extermination order is pretty obvious.
Now lets go over what you wrote. You said “it was because?” a question mark, implying that there must of been a valid reason for it. You then made the giant leap that it was polygamy…hence a belief in polygamy is reason for the state to shoot you.
I tell you, your writing skills are terrible, and yet it is I the humble reader who is dumb and can’t read, it is I your humble reader who misquotes you. Really? One would think, since I haven’t been the first by any means who got wrapped into your word games that you play, the person who has the problem is in fact, you.
But since you believe that texas was justified in ripping out 400 children from their mothers based on a hunch because they practiced polygamy, I guess I can go ahead and have a hunch about you that you agreed with Boggs, that the state should shoot those evil Mormons, they have more than one wife you know …
Conservative Voice on May 22, 2008 at 9:34 PM
Even though you said as wrong as it was, you still justified it r2b
Conservative Voice on May 22, 2008 at 9:36 PM
This thread is going who-knows-where (like every thread about Huckabee and Romney), but I just wanted to add that the Boggs order in Missouri had absolutely nothing to do with polygamy, as the Mormons didn’t practice it at the time they were expelled. The doctrine didn’t surface until they had settled in Nauvoo, Illinois. Kind of a grasping argument, Right2Bright. Now, back to the case at hand…you know, the one in Texas.
bobthepeeler on May 22, 2008 at 9:40 PM
I think it is funny that I am over the top, because I “misquote” you, and didn’t give you the benefit of the doubt, yet you are quick to judge the parents of 400 kids that they are going to rape the girls or teach the boys to rape based on zero evidence. Have I taken your kids away r2b? Have I said the state should take away your kids based on my hunch?
Conservative Voice on May 22, 2008 at 9:40 PM
Why is it ok to kill men women and children because they are different? Thanks adolph.
elBarto on May 22, 2008 at 9:53 PM
The search was based on a call from aanother state by a person known to the police as making false accusations. It is totally bogus.
elBarto on May 22, 2008 at 9:57 PM
I agree one-hundred percent. There is no doubt, heads need to roll at CPS and the entire chain of command that allowed this atrocity to happen. These kids and families were seriously harmed for no other reason than the CPS desire to puff itself up in the eyes of the public. CPS doesn’t care about kids, nobody in their right mind would do something like this that cares about kids. Texas and every state for that matter, needs to enact stern laws that keep this out of control agency in check.
The magnitude of error by the Texas authorities in this case was so great that it could have got lots of innocent people killed, this could have turned into Waco Texas all over again. Will they never learn, do they even care?
And the media with it’s only concern being a boost in ratings, engaged in every kind of gross sensationalism imaginable, with no concern for the facts or any balance whatsoever. They tried and convicted all of these families in the eyes of the public by day one. Even now, after this ruling that shows the CPS had nothing for evidence the media continues to use loaded terms like “compound” to describe the church ranch. It’s sad, sickening and irresponsible.
I can still remember the McMartin preschool investigation and trial back in the 1980’s. Those people almost went to prison for the rest of their natural lives based on absolutely nothing. That was also a combination of media hype and an over zealous government agency trying to make a name for itself.
Maxx on May 22, 2008 at 10:21 PM
I think a false assumption here is that you either take children away form their parents or you do nothing. I’m not a big expert on how child services operate but I assume between doing nothing and raiding houses and taking children away there’s some middle ground in between like visitation by a child services official or whatever.
freevillage on May 22, 2008 at 11:40 PM
it’s about time someone with an understanding of our (texas)constitution and the authority to back it up grew a set of bolshy great yarblockos
who’s next? the hare krishnas for believing a blue kid is the supreme personality?
it’s time we end their concept of “people of the government, by the government and for the government”
devadevadasa on May 23, 2008 at 12:08 AM
1) It is ungodly. (God’s example for marriage was 1 man & 1 woman)
2) It is inhuman. Look at what it does to the women. It is cruel to them. Watch the video and see the tears. Look at the journal of the great-great-grandmother and the tears she shed.
3) It is based on a lie. Joseph Smith was a false prophet who made up “scripture” to justify his own evil desires, put Emma through Hell on Earth, and dared to tell her that God would destroy her if she didn’t put up with it.
4) It is still practiced by some (not all) of the people who claim to be following Joseph Smith.
5) While the LDS had a “prophet” say that God had essentially changed his mind (according to Joseph Smith, God told him that he had to have a plurality of wives in order for him to become a god, but then God told a later prophet not to do it…I guess their god was confused). God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Joseph Smith tried to claim God-ordained polygamy in order to satisfy his own selfish, self-seeking sexual deviancy.
Satan is the father of lies and confusion.
Try reading John 8:31-59 and pay attention to “truth” vs. “lies”.
Red Pill on May 23, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Having spent over $10,000 on defending myself from false accusations from an X wife… I understand how once you are in the CPS system, you are pretty much screwed.
It took YEARS, even after winning full custody in California, for Colorado to leave me alone after the X made allegations… 6 years after the divorce…
In any CPS case, your rights go right out the window… I had to fight to even have a Lawyer present. They can take your kids for no reason, just on suspicion… which is so against the way we run our Judicial system here its scary.
They took these kids without probable cause…. Judge did called it correctly, but did not go far enough. The state CANNOT take your children without some due process… thats the Constitution…
Whatever happend to innocent, until PROOVEN guilty?
Romeo13 on May 23, 2008 at 12:11 AM
That’s covered in this video. I think the youngest one was 15.
Red Pill on May 23, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Mormon Doc, if it is your heart’s desire to dwell with Heavenly Father for time and all eternity…
then please ask yourself these three questions.
The material I quoted previously came directly from the LDS web site.
Red Pill on May 23, 2008 at 12:27 AM
Hey, thanks for answering me. I don’t care about the 3-5 stuff is irrelevant to me, I don’t care about LDS doctrine on it.
Your point #1 is solid, but the 12 tribes came out of more than one wife and there is no stigma associated with that. In the NT it’s mentioned in relationship to bishop, so I’m happy to acknowledge it sets a good example for all of us, but I don’t see why it’s such a burr.
Seems like it would be smart policy post-war so that women didn’t have to live old-maids by simple numbers. Supposedly post-WWI it was an issue in Britain, and many opted for same-sex relationships consequently.
#2 is interesting – for emotional reasons. But if they choose it for themselves, and it’s not sin, then that’s their biz, no?
Spirit of 1776 on May 23, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Red Pill on May 23, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Red Pill, you are grossly mistaken. First off, polygamy was practiced in the Old Testament, so did Father Abraham make up “scripture” to justify his own evil desires? Issac? King David? ( David didn’t get in trouble for having many wives, more than Joseph Smith ever had, he got in trouble with God when he killed a man to cover up his adultery )
Second off, you do not understand the statement God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Do we still follow the law of Moses as given by God, or are we not under a new covenant? And I’m not talking about the basic ten commandments either. For example eating pork, stoning people, etc.
Third, you do not understand how polygamy worked within the LDS church back in the day. The husband could not just marry anyone, it had to be a joint decision. No one was forced to do anything. Nor was it a requirement to get to heaven, for not every Elder in the church practiced polygamy.
Lastly, marriage of a young teenager was not the same back a 100 years ago when the average life-span was much shorter and teenagers were considered young adults at a fairly young age…so the idea of so called statutory rape that r2b likes to bring up all the time, that is a new concept in the law.
But again, this isn’t about polygamy or about Mormonism, it is about the state coming in and ripping 400 kids from their homes on a hunch that something was wrong.
Conservative Voice on May 23, 2008 at 1:17 AM
I agree with you there. Innocent until proven guilty. And if found guilty, you punish the guilty adult, not traumatize the children the way they did by ripping them away from their parents and their homes.
Red Pill on May 23, 2008 at 1:28 AM
I’m sure others have commented, but I stopped reading comments at your (above) post.
There are pitfalls to assuming someone/something is guilty. You can’t condemn without first being rational and looking at the evidence, amiright?
Rushing to JUDGMENT and snatching 400+ kids from their mothers is a bit unhinged. NOW we have a court that agrees with that sentiment. We do not need another Waco at this point.
Meanwhile, in San Fransisco, Bernie Ward is allowed to live with his children after exchanging child porn and admitting to sexual fantasies about his kids and their friends.
What a country.
Ugly on May 23, 2008 at 1:52 AM
OH YEAH – for all you Michael Savage haters – he called this long ago
Ugly on May 23, 2008 at 2:00 AM
About time. My first thought on the very first news report was: “That’s too convenient – the call is a hoax.” Never trust Texas LEA – corrupt to the core. I immediately pictured a bunch of bored LEA sitting around saying: “But I know we could find evidence if we just had cause to search.”. No problem in Texas – the law manufactures evidence and cause all the time.
I was astonished when they took ALL the children. It was an obvious overstep and violation of the law. What were they thinking? It’s likely many of these children will be far more traumatized by this ordeal than they ever would have been by their parents.
Abuse is rampant in foster care. I wonder if any of these children has been sexually abused in the time since they were taken from their parents? If so, CPS is directly responsible for that abuse.
The illegality was obvious from the start. If this ends in a suit which takes my tax dollars, the CPS leaders should be held liable.
I oppose forced marriages of any kind, but the actions of LEA in this case were an even worse abomination. I love Texas despite the fact that the law here is utterly corrupt. Fake drugs. Fake informants. Fake probable cause. Fake evidence. Fake DWI arrests. Fake justice.
DreadWolf on May 23, 2008 at 4:14 AM
Some clarifications for people out there:
(1) To avoid breaking any bigamy/polygamy laws, people LEGALLY marry only ONE person. It is not against the law to live with or have sex with many people. It may be immoral to some, but it is NOT illegal. A lot of folks in Hollywood would have their children taken from them if that were the case.
(2) In violation of family court orders to keep siblings together, CPS scattered them across the state of Texas, hundreds of miles apart.
(3) CPS “misidentified” several ADULTS as MINORS.
(4) Shortly after the raid, the men volunteered to leave the ranch so that the women and children could live there, under the supervision of CPS while it conducted an investigation. CPS rejected the offer.
(5) To date, almost two months after the raid, no criminal charges have been filed for abuse. The children are not allowed access to their religious materials, by order of CPS. So much for the First Amendment.
Bottom line, whether you approve of this group or not, barring a violation of the law, they are free to live their lives and raise their children as they choose. This was a political hit on a group that was politically vulnerable. Many muslims are also practicing polygamy, yet PC dictates a “hands off” approach.
KC on May 23, 2008 at 7:27 AM
Okay, rather then you guys using your “character assasination”, how about some facts.
Show me where my quotes were wrong, and I will retract what I said.
I will show you, from LDS sites, support for what I stated.
Now here is your time to put me in my place. You can hate what I post, you can despise it, but you won’t find it in accurate. This is information from your LDS site, that is what is so strange about your response.
Smith and Young had child brides (and it was illegal), taken from homes of their followers. They had sex with those child brides. They were polygamists, when polygamy was illegal, and they knew it.
Now, you point out specifically where these statements are untrue. And then, instead of saying some garbage about money being in “anti-Mormon (as if the Mormon church doesn’t raise their own money), you will state some facts.
What does this mean?
right2bright on May 23, 2008 at 8:22 AM
Well, I don’t live in a secret compound, with multiple wives and hundreds of kids that have no idea of the lineage. I am not under suspect by one of the most influential churches (LDS) who have denounced my practices for decades. I have not had a wife “escape” and detail child and women atrocities, and a child did not call (and good luck on the argument it was bogus), all while living under the confines of a self proclaimed prophet. Manson, Jim Jones, just to name a couple of “prophets”.
You may be the person to gamble with childrens lives, I would rather not.
All of the behavior pattern of a “compound gone wild” was there, and I thing the authorities had more information then you do…unless you are a “seer” and know the truth.
right2bright on May 23, 2008 at 8:28 AM
Right2Bright..
So.. to hell with Due Process of Law if your creep ‘O’ meter goes off at the religious camp?
DaveC on May 23, 2008 at 8:38 AM
There’s a reason many here in Texas refer to CPS as CAS – “Child Abductive Services”. This case is merely one example.
Vic on May 23, 2008 at 8:51 AM
First of all, I was posting to someone who had a knowledge of the history. The question mark was to show that it was a rhetorical question, because I knew the reader had the answer, one of the main reasons was Smith’s insistence regarding polygamy. The law was a little different in 1838, a little more brutal, and less judicial (as wrong as it was). Read the reports and you will see it wasn’t a “giant leap”, which is why I wasn’t posting to you. I knew you would not understand.
And normal civil rights included polygamy for Smith.
Justice of the Peace Philip Covington provided a sworn deposition in Daviess County that on 18 September 1838, he witnessed a band of 100 or more Mormon men march into Gallatin and drive out the citizens, before robbing and burning the store and Post Office. On 20 September (1838), a group of 25 armed Mormons informed Covington that he had until the following morning to leave the county, or he and his family would be attacked.
Still the extermination order was wrong. The majority of anti-Mormons were led my ex-Mormons (read the Salt Sermon).
Regardless here are a couple of links to help you (no they are not “anti-Mormon), one is from what was the most respected scholar of history, until…will read the PBS interview.
Interview
His Book review
And another look at Mormon persecution
Now lds-mormon.com is not a pro mormon site, but it has a balance from the official site.
Read, and then any questions Google the facts. The facts won’t come from the anti-Mormon or the LDS sites. But when there is a question or conflict between the two, investigate. Quinn did.
right2bright on May 23, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Yeah, I get it, but there has to be some discernment. I am not as cut and dried as some of you guys of who is right and wrong.
CPS can be way over the top, way over…yet, if we found out 5 years from now that children had been abused, we would nail them for being ineffective.
Don’t forget this was a very secret compound, a very influential church (the actual LDS) “flagged” it as being off the charts. This church was a thorn in the side of the LDS, people kept tying them, falsely, to the Mormons. There was a lot leading up to this, not just a phone call, if left alone and unanswered, could have been a tragedy.
Jones, Koresh, and others “prophets” have led to real tragedy. At least it wasn’t a “Waco” massacre, and maybe hindsight could have been handled better, but look at the signs leading up to it.
There is always a chance of something like this:
Nutcase:
I understand the tragedy of taking the kids, but not taking precautions, and moving quickly could have been worse. We know now that probably not.
right2bright on May 23, 2008 at 9:26 AM
I am no fan of religions in general but some of these Christians really get on my nerves when they badmouth Mormons and I am not even talking about he FLDS kind though am glad that the kids can go back to their families. The thing that gets me is how they call Mormons a cult and say that they believe crazy things when Mormonism is just Christianity with an addendum. Christians believe in that superstitious nonsense of ghosts rising from the dead, not just Jesus mind you, the one scripture has a bunch of people in town coming out of their graves like Michael Jackson’s thriller. Yet they have the stones to call the other people crazy. They are the troofers of 2000 years ago. Show me one person that ever successfully had a resurrection in a somewhat similar manner and I might reconsider. It doesn’t happen.
Personally I think Christians are jealous of Mormons because they have better self control, are more dedicated to their religion, and Mormonism produces better results than your speaking in tongues bigots.
LevStrauss on May 23, 2008 at 9:42 AM
That is true in most every state, so how do we protect children that are abused?
I will guarantee that there is almost no turnover of personal in any CPS office in any state. You can have the most inept people…
right2bright on May 23, 2008 at 9:45 AM
Look around, and see what those crazy faithful people have built for you.
God forbid that you (or a family member) need to go to hospital, that hospital is more then likely built by Christian or Jewish crazy jealous people.
The University system, the first in the nation, built by those crazy jealous people.
The first to give aid to victims, open their doors to the homeless, the abused women…why it is those crazy jealous Christians. Those undisciplined, undedicated, Christians feed more hungry every night, then you would ever imagine, or care about. We pay more mortgages, put food on more tables, care for more children, then you even know about (obviously). We visit the dying, and care for the living, and it takes a post like yours for you to get a glimpse, but you will reject it; because it is beyond your understanding of the kindness and consideration that the jealous, un-controlled Christians give, more then they take…but you get to take.
You live in a land built upon those principles, you enjoy the fruits freely given to you, and like most beggars, you don’t appreciate the giver.
right2bright on May 23, 2008 at 9:56 AM
However, common law supercedes the “one marriage license” idea. Your number 1 is not accurate.
The rest is an accurate and sad summary.
right2bright on May 23, 2008 at 10:02 AM
right2bright on May 23, 2008 at 9:56 AM
People can be as crazy as they want, I don’t particularly care, but when one crazy guy is condescending to the other crazy guy, somebody with a semblence of sanity should set the former straight.
I never said all Christians, I said “some of these Christians” and I qualified it as Christians that badmouth other religions that beleive in the same superstitious stuff. That is supremecist, in an environment where reason and logic doesn’t afford them that right. In other words, if people want to badmouth other faiths they should be prepared to be judged themselves.
LevStrauss on May 23, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Well then, the argument is closed. You cannot say anything ill, even if correct, about any other religious group.
But one thing is clear, why would you lecture me on something you don’t believe exists? If it doesn’t exist, why do you care?
We are asked to judge, that is how you make a decision, you judge don’t you?
And your welcome for all that we have given you…like I said, a beggar rarely thanks his benefactor.
right2bright on May 23, 2008 at 11:03 AM
This defense of my religion from a non-believer cracked me up. Too funny sir. I appreciate friends like you.
thomashton on May 23, 2008 at 11:26 AM
I was under the impression that the Extermination Order was more political than anything. Suddenly, frontier states and counties with small populations had larger numbers of people immigrating in. All these people had a like-minded philosophy and could be directed to vote/act political in a certain way.
This scared the “locals” as all of the sudden local and state politics could be controlled by outsiders with a majority. Thus, the Mormons were kicked out of Missouri, Illinois, Ohio . . .
thomashton on May 23, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Which makes it a simple ordering problem. If you take a stupid ancient book of cruel and immoral fairy tales, and add to it just the right touch of racism, abuse of women and pedophilia, the end result will be worse than the original. Hence, of course, Mormon theology is even more ridiculous and insane than mainstream Christianity.
You’re right though that the Mormon culture is much more than or arguably very different from its literal theology. I honestly didn’t like the feeling that I had while visiting Mormon compounds in SLC. Felt too much like a cult. However, I agree that Mormons seem to be willing to pay much more attention to actually following their rules themselves than forcing others to do it.
freevillage on May 23, 2008 at 12:04 PM
I’ve lived off and on for 20 years within 2 hours of SLC and never been to a Mormon compound. That is funny as I myself am Mormon.
What are these “compounds” you’re speaking of and how can I visit? Perhaps they are only available to tourists.
You give the false impression of a Waco, Jonestown, Eldorado etc. My feeling is that it was intentional.
thomashton on May 23, 2008 at 12:30 PM
right2bright on May 23, 2008 at 9:45 AM
Don’t get me started on inept case workers. For the most part they are balanced out by even more inept judges. And in this case it was an over-zealous department and and over-zealous judge, who get away with it because of people like you who make it a polygamy and Mormon issue.
The only way the judge and case workers can be kept in check is if the majority of the people cry foul. Luckily in this case the appeal process is working, but the damage is already done.
Conservative Voice on May 23, 2008 at 12:45 PM
right2bright on May 23, 2008 at 8:28 AM
For someone who likes to call everyone else stupid when they read what you wrote versus what you meant…I will again spell it out for you. Based on my hunch that you secretly want to shoot those eeevil Mormons, should I raid your compound, remove your kids, take your guns, and ignore your lawyers? Trying to apply the same stick of judgment you are using here.
Conservative Voice on May 23, 2008 at 12:49 PM
You are correct, there were many “reasons”, don’t forget it was common practice to “move” the Indians off there land also. It was kind of the “thing to do”.
The Mormons were secretive, they were “breaking laws” with polygamy, there was a band of dissenters (ex-mormons) who were behind most of the shenanigans. that is where the famous salt sermon (”If the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.”) came from. They were gearing up for a epic battle to the death (Mormons and ex-Mormons). They (Mormons) would buy up land, move into a town or county and populate all of the political seats and then grant themselves favor. While stepping all over the ex-Mormons. There were a lot of ex-Mormons, this was a different Mormon church then now, they were very strict and if you did not follow then you were cast out, this was in 1838 or so, not much of an organized society. So when things got out of control, in comes the calvary.
Neither side was very nice.
Hence the statement “Smith was never convicted”, which is correct, he escaped after pre-trial.
right2bright on May 23, 2008 at 2:54 PM
For an interesting perspective from an attorney who deals with the social services in his practice. See: IPerceive.net
For all this blather about LDS and Joseph Smith – r2b – you don’t have to believe it. You have your free agency. But don’t try and convince those of us who believe, because, I won’t convince you and you won’t convince me. Give it up.
And, by the way, (Oh, John would laugh for all of you who know) I guess you mean before he turned himself in with his brother and was shot to death by a mob, while in jail.
Bambi on May 23, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Here is a different thought on the specific alleged sexual grooming of the boys and girls.
There are a lot of teenage girls in the United States having sex. Out public school system teaches them to go ahead and have sex and here is the way to do it safely. Yes, as long as you are “mature”, you can choose to have sex with whomever you want and with as many as you want as long as they are not over 18 years old. Once the young woman reaches that magical age of 18, she can then have sex with gramps if she wants to. Furthermore, she needs not worry about getting pregnant because she can always get an abortion.
What does the FLDS teach their young women? That the greatest way to serve God is to become Mothers! Boys are taught that it is their duty to become fathers and support the mother(s) of their children and the children.
Hence, the FLDS are committing sexual abuse by teaching their girls that the highest honor a woman can achieve on earth is to become mothers and their boys to become fathers irregardless of the polygamy.
Meanwhile, those of us who are living and working outside of those FLDS compounds and have children are trying to teach morals too. However, the state is teaching our young women to become whores and sluts and our young men to become users of the young women without any responsibility for their co-action.
PrettyD_Vicious on May 24, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2