Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Texas Authorities, Media Ensure It’s Not Easy Being Mormon
North Star Writers Group ^ | May 26, 2008 | Lucia de Vernai

Posted on 05/26/2008 6:42:47 AM PDT by Dukes Travels

It’s not easy being Mormon. No cursing, no premarital sex, no Mountain Dew. Perpetual good neighbors, their religion – so inherent to their existence – is a mystery even to those of us who have grown up in predominantly Latter Day Saint communities. In fact, most people know Mormons as the demographic that keeps FamilyFlix in business, Chevy Suburbans on the road and children from divorced families feeling cheated.

Thus, it’s a shame that the one opportunity the country may have to get to know the faith is when political spin taints the message. The high hopes that the Mitt Romney campaign would serve as a vehicle to spread the awareness of the religion have been replaced by the effort to separate the Salt Lake City-based church from the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints that have been making the news in Texas. The FLDS broke off from the central authority over 100 years ago.

(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: flds; mormon; mormonbashing; polygamists; whining
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last
To: Enosh
Pastafarian heaven includes beer volcanoes and strippers, s

Really? I thought it was just a political gimmick. I'll have to check out it now.

41 posted on 05/26/2008 9:27:05 AM PDT by Ron Jeremy (sonic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
If you want to learn more about the mormons:

.... .... ....

42 posted on 05/26/2008 9:29:02 AM PDT by greyfoxx39 (Protected species legislation enacted May 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: conservativeharleyguy
Imagine being told the only way you'll ever see your children again is to completely renounce and give up your religion.

I know where you're coming from in libertarian terms, but you've got to remember that children are wards; not property. And what constitutes a religion, at least in this country, is defined by the individual, who might or might not make a "religious" practice of bringing up little girls for the sole purpose of having a fresh supply of sweet young teenagers for middle-aged men to prey upon. I don't fault the state for its concern.

43 posted on 05/26/2008 9:29:37 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Barack Obama--the first black Jimmy Carter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ron Jeremy
It is just a gimmick, but it's funny as all get out!

WWFSMD?

44 posted on 05/26/2008 9:30:31 AM PDT by Enosh (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
Did you read my first paragraph? I never said I agree with their lifestyle, just with the way this was handled by the Texas authorities. Collective punishments rarely have their desired effect. We don't have to agree with their religious beliefs, but this country was founded on Christian belief in religious tolerance, and I believe in their right to have them.

So, until specific criminal activity is discovered (no charges have yet been filed), I am willing to at least give them some benefit of the doubt. I may not agree with them, but wouldn't you want the same. There are those in America who believe that exposure of your children to any Christian belief is abuse.

From the looks of your "about" page, you appear to have made this topic your hobby, and somewhat of a personal crusade (to the point where the Moderator [peace and blessings be upon him (;{) ] had to intervene).

I won't pretend to know as many infinite details about this case as someone who appears to have centered their life around it (for whatever reason one can only speculate), but I still believe it's wrong to approach it the way your blessed Texas Rangers did.

And no, I'm not one of those "America haters" and "child abuse apologists" to which you refer. I just believe this action will be harder on the majority of those children than if the Texas Rangers had simply rooted out the actual abusers, and taken them down hard. That would have served as an object lesson to everyone there. But that's not really what it's about anyway. If you think it was "for the children", then I believe you're mistaken. Again, what are you going to do when they come for you and no-one is left to speak out???
45 posted on 05/26/2008 9:56:35 AM PDT by conservativeharleyguy (Democrats: Over 60 million fooled daily!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: conservativeharleyguy

Only one problem. These people admit to practicing polygamy which is illegal. The state has girls in custody that were obviously underage when they were pregnant. And the cult won’t produce documentation about ages and marital status.

In short, they brought it on themselves.


46 posted on 05/26/2008 10:10:23 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
About as helpful as learning more about Christianity by going to:

And no, I don't recommend going to this website!

47 posted on 05/26/2008 10:18:08 AM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
And no, I don't recommend going to this website!

Why not? Ex-Christian, Non-Christian...what's the difference?

48 posted on 05/26/2008 10:25:26 AM PDT by greyfoxx39 (Protected species legislation enacted May 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: conservativeharleyguy

My point is—how DO you sort it out?

In a “normal” child abuse case, when there’s an accusation of child abuse, authorities come in and remove not just the one child, but all of the children in the household. That’s what was done here. The difference is not only in the number of children involved in this case, but the very murky relationships—which child belongs to which parent? Most of the men (except those involved in monogamous marriage at the time) disappeared, the women lied to protect them, and the children weren’t going to speak up while those enabling mothers were watching their every move.

The only way they could properly question the children was—just like in any other case—to separate the victims from the alleged perps and the witnesses.


49 posted on 05/26/2008 10:25:26 AM PDT by MizSterious (God bless the Texas Rangers for freeing women & children from sexual slavery and abuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
"...In a “normal” child abuse case, when there’s an accusation of child abuse, authorities come in and remove not just the one child, but all of the children in the household..."

And, as it turns out, the accusation is false. So the answer is to seperate every child from every household? Ever hear of "Fruit of the Poisoned Tree"? Please don't say it's better to just go in and grab all of them, and then sort it out. The correct answer is to verify the source of the calls first, determine whether or not it's credible , then take the action appropriate to the actual situation. Apparently, it wasn't too hard to verify, since they did manage to do it after the fact (...OOPS..., it was just some nut-case with a history of doing the same thing.

Unless of course, you just need a pretext to pursue some other agenda. But then, "It's for the sake of the children" has worked before ("Hey, maybe if we make it about polygamy, "cults", and kids, even the Conservative Christians will let us do it").

Texas has no case, or they would have immediately brought charges. If they couldn't do that, then they didn't prepare properly. If they had conducted this correctly, a few bad apples would have gone straight to jail (or would be on the lam, with a price on their heads), their kids would be getting the help they need, and there wouldn't be 450 plus kids floundering in the foster care system. Instead, they did it backwards, and now they are trying to make the "crime" fit the charge, rather than the charge fit the crime. It seems to me that they are now just making it up as they go.

I seem to remember a great deal of acrimony over the years on this forum about the broken foster care system, and its numerous failures. Now all of a sudden, just because it suits your purpose at the moment, it's OK to put hundreds of kids into that failing system??

So if I decide to call the Oklahoma authorities and tell them that your neighbor is molesting his children, when the Police come and take your kids too - because well..., you do live right next door, you do go to the same church, and you were seen together somewhere, you won't say anything.... right?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I really don't like the thought of the authorities using unsubstantiated claims as a pretext to raid someone's home, then pretend they had a legitimate reason all along. Again that old "Fruit of the Poisoned Tree" thing.
50 posted on 05/26/2008 11:36:02 AM PDT by conservativeharleyguy (Democrats: Over 60 million fooled daily!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
My point is—how DO you sort it out?

At this point i am not sure anyone can.

The problems started when Texas went in and found more than they thought were there and to make matters worse ignored proof some were overage and declared them minors. They should of took only the ones that were really in imminate danger the 14-17 year old girls.

As soon as they started admitting some were not minors they lost creditability and from there it will go downhill.

They never gave them a proper first hearing and from what I see I am not sure they are getting a proper second hearing.

A lot of that is there is just not enough judges and courtrooms to have the hearings in other words they did not plan on this size of a problem.

So with a problem too large to properly handle and the lies they told about ages of some of the girls it is all snarled.

I am hoping the supreme court of Texas can make a ruling that will give some chance of determining if something wrong has happened there.

But almost two months with no arrest of anyone makes me wonder if it is a case of they did things wrong sometime but not here.

I do not approve of illegal behavior by flds nor by the state.

51 posted on 05/26/2008 11:48:08 AM PDT by mouser (run the rats out its the only hope we have)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
These people admit to practicing polygamy which is illegal.

Yes, and many posters are ignorant that the original search warrant not only focused upon a criminal investigation of sexual abuse, but included bigamy as well.

52 posted on 05/26/2008 12:50:42 PM PDT by Colofornian (As the fLDS is now, the LDS once was. As the fLDS is now, the LDS will become)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TheDon; greyfoxx39; All
Everyone on this chart has either never been a member of the LDS church or was excommunicated from it, except Joseph Smith and John Taylor. I wouldn’t want anyone to be misled...

Benjamin T. Johnson was either ex-communicated or was never an LDS member? Really? (I wouldn't want anyone to be misled by the misleader)

53 posted on 05/26/2008 12:55:23 PM PDT by Colofornian (As the fLDS is now, the LDS once was. As the fLDS is now, the LDS will become)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
It Practices What They Preach
Cast into the spotlight by fugitive polygamist Prophet Warren Jeffs, the mainstream Mormon Church's trying to distance itself from its infamous cousin

An in-depth study of the ties between the LDS and FLDS.

Link

The reality is, many mainstream Mormons believe, the LDS would reinstitute polygamy -- which was practiced by members of the official church from the 1830s into the early 20th century -- if it had the legal power.

Jeffs and his band of hard-core polygamists are providing the public with chilling insight into the abuses of the practice, the most alarming of which is the sexual predation of underage girls. That both branches of the Mormon religion share the same polygamist roots is something the LDS leaders would rather not see exposed.

Both the LDS and the FLDS are based on the spiritual "revelations" of Mormon Church founder and prolific polygamist Joseph Smith. Smith's bedrock religious principle is polygamy, which is described in detail in Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

One verse of Section 132 is printed above. Others are directed at Smith's first wife, Emma. She is warned that if she doesn't accept Smith's plural wives, "she shall be destroyed." The admonition to Emma is considered by anti-polygamy activists as a warning to all Mormon women that, if necessary, they must accept polygamy or face hellfire.

The fact that Section 132 remains official Mormon doctrine has been a rallying point for anti-polygamy groups whose leaders bitterly complain that the LDS has provided no support, financial or otherwise, in their efforts to assist women and children who have been victimized by fundamentalist Mormons.

"[LDS] Mormons are trying to present a picture of the traditional family and yet they still have Section 132 in their scripture," notes Vicki Prunty, executive director of the Salt Lake City-based Tapestry Against Polygamy. "They have not denied the belief system that propagates polygamy. Until they do so and treat women as equals, we are going to continue to have the same fallout and abuses."

The LDS has provided little, if any, financial assistance to youth discarded by the polygamists, known as the "Lost Boys," or to desperate mothers who frequently face difficult and expensive legal battles to secure custody of their children.

Instead of providing help to people who, like its members, were brought up on the teachings of Mormon founder Joseph Smith, the LDS do not officially admit that fundamentalist Mormon polygamists even exist.

"There is no such thing as a 'Mormon fundamentalist,' nor are there 'Mormon sects,'" the LDS states in its May 10,2006 press release.

The LDS conveniently ignores the fact that FLDS members refer to themselves as "Mormon fundamentalists." It is all part of LDS propaganda that attempts to hide the deep historical ties between the two branches of the same religion.

54 posted on 05/26/2008 1:13:04 PM PDT by greyfoxx39 (Protected species legislation enacted May 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
Everyone on this chart has either never been a member of the LDS church or was excommunicated from it, except Joseph Smith, John Taylor and Benjamin T. Johnson.

I wouldn’t want anyone to be misled...

55 posted on 05/26/2008 1:51:45 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy; ansel12
Having far more females than males at the time, this explained why they dabbled in polygamy and pseudo-socialism when living in the desolation of Utah. They were just being pragmatic.

I believe it was Ansel12 who has posted sociological/demographic info which disproves this bogus theory. As was true of the entire West in the 19th century, there were many more men than women. (Perhaps Ansel12 could repost the info he found)

According to the Changing World of Mormonism, pp. 224-225: [LDS} "Apostle John A. Widtsoe stated: ’We do not understand why the Lord commanded the practice of plural marriage.’ (Evidences and Reconciliations, 1960, p.393). One of the most popular explanations is that the church practiced polygamy because there was a surplus of women. The truth is, however, that there were less women than men. Apostle Widtsoe admitted that there was no surplus of women”: The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seems always to have been more males than females in the Church.’.. The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United States, ... there was no surplus of women'” (Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, 1960, pp.390-92," as cited in Changing World, pp. 224-225).

56 posted on 05/26/2008 2:05:51 PM PDT by Colofornian (As the fLDS is now, the LDS once was. As the fLDS is now, the LDS will become)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
From that point [early 1860s], they had generally wise doctrines, if a tad racist. Be loyal to the US. Be contemporary, that is, keep up with the times. Go for a healthy lifestyle, and keep religious and social discipline. Don’t make waves.

Sorry. You are engaging in revisionistic history. If anything, the Mormons accelerated their practice of polygamy in the late 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s...when they began to require their bishops & other top leaders to become polygamists. (In fact, some bishops were released who would not engage in the practice).

It was the Republican party, identifying polygamy was one of "the twin relics of barbarism" in 1856, followed by increasing Congressional legislative pressure from the early 1860s to the later 1880s, that helped bring about the beginning of polygamy's demise (along with a railroad goin' thru Utah, which helped the federals in their investigation & crackdown).

57 posted on 05/26/2008 2:11:16 PM PDT by Colofornian (As the fLDS is now, the LDS once was. As the fLDS is now, the LDS will become)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dukes Travels
Texas Authorities, Media Ensure It’s Not Easy Being Mormon

No; it's MORMONISM itself that makes it hard!!!

58 posted on 05/26/2008 2:45:08 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
If you want to learn more about the Mormons:

And if you want to learn a LOT more....

59 posted on 05/26/2008 2:46:39 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
And no, I don't recommend going to this website!

I want to learn more about Mormonism.

Can you please tell me what goes on in those sec... oops... SACRED Temple Rites®?

60 posted on 05/26/2008 2:48:25 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson