An Unusual Prosecution of a Way of Life (FLDS Polygamy)

Washington Post ^ | April 27, 2008 | David Farenthold

[Zakeet]

Texas Will Attempt to Show That Polygamist Culture Itself Harms Children

ELDORADO, Tex. -- The ironic thing is that before the big sheriff's department armored personnel carrier appeared outside the Yearning for Zion Ranch, it was starting to seem as though America had finally figured out how to live with its polygamists.

For more than a century, authorities had alternately persecuted and ignored the groups practicing plural marriage around the West -- splinters from mainstream Mormonism, splinters of splinters. Mostly, they ignored them.

But, in the past few years, officials in some states have begun trying to bring these groups out of the shadows. They offered a deal: Marry however often you want, but don't marry children. A Supreme Court case on gay sex also provided unlikely help.

Then came Eldorado.

On April 3, Texas authorities raided the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' compound here, then removed more than 450 children. Now, Texas seems headed for exactly the kind of wrenching, head-on fight that other states have tried to avoid.

Their case will ask: Does this polygamous group deserve a place -- and the right to raise children -- in modern society?

[Snip]

Now comes a legal fight with a twist. The state will argue that the sect's children are at risk at the compound, but not because every one of them has been physically or sexually abused.

Instead, they will say that the culture of the church, which encouraged girls to marry and bear children in their early teens, was a danger to any child immersed in it.

[Desron13]

"No Peein' Allowed in the Gene Pool"

Ha! Just read your tag line. I love it!

[Desron13]

"No Peein' Allowed in the Gene Pool"

Now that I think about it, this brings up another good point. What kind of birth records were these people keeping to insure that no incest laws were being broken?

[Let's Roll]

“This is about sexual slavery and raping children.7”

Yes, it is.

Tired of the comparision to inner city mothers whose boyfriends prey on their children and how is it worse yada, yada?

It’s worse because inner city mothers whose boyfriends prey on their children are just that, disgusting pigs committing crimes of opportunity.

But in the YFZ situation, it is a structured, organized process whose purpose is to provide little girls and women to rape, abuse, humiliate and dominate, because deviant old men can’t get it up any other way so they make damn sure the “opportunity” is always present because it’s societally sanctioned and cloaked by religion.

[Colofornian]

There, fixed it. "Wives" is a euphemism. The whole point of "marrying" them was to put a pretty name on child-rape, which was done for the purpose of provideing sexual gratification for the men, and bearing children to increase their numbers of the group. Let's not mince words.

This straightforward assessment needs repeating over & over again on these threads. (Please post this & other discerning comments frequently...we need more folks like you & not just Morfolks who tend to defend polygamy)

[Concho]

That is the point. There arent any, and what few there are have been suggested to have been altered or not recorded correctly in the first place. That is why they are DNA testing everyone.

Until the DNA results get tallied, no one knows for sure what is going on.

This is not the only compound of its like....there is another one in British Columbia that I was just reading about. They said that the four hundred or so that are at that one can be traced back like 30 or so years to the original 7 founders of that colony. Canada is having to deal with it the same way as Texas is dealing with this one. And-—there are more. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

I dont care much about 17 year olds squirting out kids. That is common practice on the streets of the inner city. What does catch my attention is 13 year olds WHO HAVE ALREADY GIVEN BIRTH. There was also news at the beginning of this of a 16 year old who had already given birth 4 times.

We, the reading public does not even know yet, what is really going on there. After the DNA screening is done and the maps are drawn, then this cult will begin to reveal itself. Nobody cares if some guy shags more than one woman. That isnt the point. But some old lecher who is shagging 12 year old girls should be the concern of the community.

What if that were your 12 year old daughter or granddaugher? That changes the picture doesnt it?

[Desron13]

"We, the reading public does not even know yet, what is really going on there. After the DNA screening is done and the maps are drawn, then this cult will begin to reveal itself. Nobody cares if some guy shags more than one woman. That isnt the point. But some old lecher who is shagging 12 year old girls should be the concern of the community."

I totally agree. However, should the now sixteen year old mother loose custody of her children for no other reason than she was a victim of this horrific abuse? This is indeed going to be a can of worms.

[Desron13]

"What if that were your 12 year old daughter or granddaugher? That changes the picture doesnt it?"

Concho, just what in any of my posts suggests to you that I think an adult having sex with a twelve year old girl is anything but rape? Please reread my posts.

[dayglored]

> I’m not defending their practices. If they have the evidence to prosecute them, go for it. But, frequently there is a fine line between prosecution and persecution. I’m making a point that all of the grandstanding over polygamy is hypocritical, not to mention, a ruse to stir up dislike of Mormons in general. All of the Mormons that I know have the strongest family values and sense of community of any religious group I have seen.

The media, news agencies, etc. are using the term "polygamy" because that's not in dispute, whereas "child-rape" will require some forensic DNA testing to prove, even though it's perfectly obvious it occurred.

Don't mince words. "Polygamy" is not the issue and everyone knows that. They just can't say "child rape" until it's proven forensically.

I stand strongly and firmly on the First Amendment, and defend the rights of any person to believe whatever they want to, and practice their religion as long as it doesn't involve illegal behavior. Thus I have no quarrel whatsoever with Mormons or anyone else on the basis of their beliefs.

It's only when the ACTIONS of a group, based on their beliefs, run afoul of the law, that I become exercised about it.

Since I doubt you're going to argue that child rape should be legal, and therefore be protected by the First Amendment's religion clause, I think we can agree that the actions taken against the FLDS sexual slavery prison are justified.

[Concho]

Absolutely it is a mess. The 16 year old loose custody? Yes, that is a hard one, but who is going to support her and her 4 children? She is but a child herself. Uneducated, unworldly, and unable to function in society. There are several things that are not being reported by the Main Stream Media.

Nobody is interviewing the “fathers”. They mostly scattered like rats. Why are the men of this bunch not being identified and held accountable? When asked, the women evaded all the questions about who their “husbands” were. Nobody is reporting on how the male children are cast out onto the road when they reach 17, and are never permitted back in.

It is not a healthy situation, any way that you look at it. I hate the interference of anything Government as much as the other guy, but, the slimy part of all this, is-—someone has to stand up for those kids, and who is it going to be?

[BlazingArizona]

BTW, is anybody going to mention here the fact that the in-breeding within FLDS has produced deformed, unhealthy, offspring and continues to do so?

Bet hey, I thought that the official ideology gods had decreed that we are no longer supposed to 'believe' in genetics? Genetics is a gateway belief that could lead to Darwinism.

[Concho]

I was not poking that at you in particular, it was just a general thought.

[najida]

The difference is free will of all parties involved versus cult isolation, brainwashing and slavery.

BIG difference.

[Colofornian]

Child molestation aside, how much worse is polygamy than a philandering husband (or wife)? Or a married person using prostitutes? ...not supporting polygamy, just saying there is some hypocrisy in many politicians, government officials and the media.

Really? (That's suppose to be breaking news that politicians, govt officials & the media are hypocritical? What? You're telling us that our "idols" are fallen creatures? Oh, no, I'm heartsick & crestfallen & can bear no more "bad news" today. Please refrain.) /sarc off

Or a married person using prostitutes?..

Pssst. ("y - e - a - h y - o - u" [I whisper] I didn't want to embarrass you in front of everybody, but just wanted to make sure you understand that prostitution is illegal & if caught in the act, johns are arrested & even in some localities, their names & pictures are posted in newspapers or online for extra embarrassment sake)

...how much worse is polygamy than a philandering husband ...

Since I would venture that a small % of polygamists haven't jump-started their "homy" harem until their wives were of legal age, then in these polygamy IS "a philandering husband"--only in this case, it's putting a religious veneer on it to sanction it and export it for others to buy into it. (So I think it's always worse when folks try to dress up & "pretty-fy" something that it's not for sake of justification)

I think non-Mormonfolk should actually take the time to go and read the mainstream & fundamentalist Mormons' justification for polygamy. And what they need to do is to look very closely for the word "Emma" to pop up. (I mean here we have old testament figures like David, Joseph, Isaac, Abraham, Solomon, Moses mentioned [Even though Joseph & Isaac weren't polygamists & Moses likely married serially & not simulteously & Solomon's 1,000 partner escapades is hardly worth emulating, etc.], and all of a sudden we see "Emma.")

Who's Emma? Well, "Emma Smith" pops up three times in verses 51-54: Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice. And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God." (D&C 132:51-52)

(I find it interesting after this last phrase was inserted into the Lord's mouth, that Joseph Smith was dead less than a year later)

And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law." (D&C 132:54)

It's pretty obvious that Joseph & Emma had already been going at it verbally before this came down the pike, and that Emma had already threatened a "tit for tat" arrangement. What? You can have many wives? (Then I can take many husbands!)

In fact, verse 55 which mentions "she" (Emma), verse 56, which mentions "mine handmaid", and then v. 63 which says that if a plural woman sleeps with another man she has committed adultery, are all aimed at Emma as well.

D&C 132, pure & simple, was an apologetic written for one person, Emma Smith, masquerading as a religious revelation for all for all time: For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory...Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain this glory. (D&C 132:4,21)

If you want to know why the fundamentalist Mormons will never willingly give up household polygamy, it's right here. If you want to know why their cousins, the mainstream Mormons will never give up temple ritual polygamy and celestial polygamy and temple ritual proxy polyandry, it's also right here.

[Balding_Eagle]

Sweep of polygamists’ kids raises legal questions

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080425/D9095CA81.html

[najida]

It is interesting how the FLDS men have scattered like trash in the breeze.

Wow, big strong tough guys....

[dayglored]

>> BTW, is anybody going to mention here the fact that the in-breeding within FLDS has produced deformed, unhealthy, offspring and continues to do so?

> But hey, I thought that the official ideology gods had decreed that we are no longer supposed to 'believe' in genetics? Genetics is a gateway belief that could lead to Darwinism.

[cough] Uh, huh.

Let those who defend this heinous crew of child-rapists provide an answer to two questions:

1. What did FLDS do with all the male babies and young men? How come the ratio of teenagers is like 5:1 female to male?

2. What happened to all the deformed babies caused by fumarase deficiency?

See here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1693652/posts

There is so much more to this story...

[najida]

I honestly believe that once all this mess is sorted out, the 16 year old will not lose custody...she may end of living in foster care with her kids, but she’ll not have parental rights severed (Unless she wishes).

And more than once, I’ve seen teen girls, pregnant via abuse, molestation etc give up their kids so the children can have a better chance and they themselves can put an ugly past behind them.

[Desron13]

"Nobody is interviewing the “fathers”. They mostly scattered like rats. Why are the men of this bunch not being identified and held accountable? When asked, the women evaded all the questions about who their “husbands” were. Nobody is reporting on how the male children are cast out onto the road when they reach 17, and are never permitted back in."

Good points all. Once this mess is sorted out, the men involved need to be held to the letter of the law. I hope that the authorities are keeping track of these characters. I also find the ousting of the male children at seventeen very revealing.

[Balding_Eagle]

I wouldn’t speak out for child molesters. Would you?

I wouldn’t defend Constitution ignoring 'law enforcement' officers. Would you?

[Colofornian]

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn’t a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

First of all, I guess we need to ask why you equate our government folks, some surprisingly who are members of a Catholic or Protestant church, with "Nazis?"

The key to quoting Martin Niemoller, a good Lutheran pastor who opposed Nazi-ism, is knowing when to apply this. Otherwise, what you get is:
When the Law enforcement folks came for the Planned Parenthood counselors who were telling clients how to get around rape & incest laws,
I remained silent;
I was not trying to protect a racist or incest perp.
When they locked up the educators who slept with local students;
I remained silent;
For I was not an abusive educator
When they came for the polygamists marrying underage girls in mock marriage ceremonies;
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a polygamist.
When they came for the abusive Roman Catholic priests
I did not speak out;
For I was not such a priest
When they came for me,
there was no more pedophiles left to speak out.