Creeped out by those cult moms in Texas!

[CTyankee]

GMA interviewed several of the women and asked them point blank about the marriages of young girls to older men and also whether they were in a polygamous marriage. It was creepy watching their mechanical, smiling (non)responses, "We're just here to talk about the children."

The creepiest of all was one woman who (again with that smile) said "I'm not brainwashed. I am a human being." She was robotic.

Not only did they all talk alike, they all LOOKED alike (inbreeding much?).

I don't think Stephen King could develop characters as scary as these women. I just hope and pray that their little children have escaped their fate. It would be nice to think that they could get better, too. I wish them well, even as they scare the daylights out of me...

[elehhhhna]

1. weird, breathy sing-song voices, and that unibrow! OY!

[Donnachaidh]

7. Thank you -- I thought I was the only one creeped out by Mrs. Unibrow

These women have been fed the koolaid for so long they don't know what the real world is like. And those dresses! They all look like extras for Little House on the Prairie. :puke:

[NNN0LHI]

17. Thats the way little baby Jesus dressed don't you know?

These people are certifiable. All you have to do is listen to them.

Don

[Xenotime]

208. Keep Sweet!

[Justpat]

28. How about the hair styles?

I don't know what period they are from but they all look alike.


This whole thing is a real problem for me. They hide behind
religious freedom to do their thing there, but it seems to me
that they are violating the Constitutional right to life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness of the children.

But I guess the children are so brainwashed they would run straight
back there as soon as possible. It is all they know.

It appears to me to be a way for lecherous older men to live out
their sexual fantasies under the guise of religion.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

34. This has to be attacked tactfully we need a scaple to cut this out

not a sledge hammer...

"They hide behind religious freedom to do their thing there, but it seems to me that they are violating the Constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the children."

One could make this argument about *any* group of people who try to raise their kids in the way they see as better for them. To attack this you need to show the world that what these parents are doing is *clearly* not better for them who gives a damn about the womens hair or voices? (or even the rather disturbing brow).

They marry girls below the age of consent and they marry them to men already marries (bigomy). Further they abandon adolescent boys so as to artificially keep the m/f ration favorable to their life style (child endangerment).

[elizfeelinggreat]

100. Yes, I agree

It's dangerous to the girls and it's ILLEGAL behavior.

Personally I do believe OB had it right with her last sentence ...

"It appears to me to be a way for lecherous older men to live out their sexual fantasies under the guise of religion."

[elehhhhna]

167. Don't forget the MONEY! They are welfare farms. Seriously.

Helluva racket if you're a creepy old man.

[elizfeelinggreat]

171. right

Nasty, creepy old men who are robbing taxpayers and abusing kids.

[Justpat]

239. I don't think pedophilia ia constitutional right

or an alternative method of parenting.

I don't give a damn about their hair.I thought their hairstyles were apropos for the
sheltered life they live. Their dress and hair appear to be the mandated dress for women
living under the rule of the male power structure that determines their every act and words.

I give a damn that the practice of giving young girls over to elderly men to be their
sexual partners is considered acceptable in anyone's eyes.

[Donnachaidh]

133. Those were definitely styles form the 1930's or 40's

My SIL attended cosmetic school way back in the 1970's, and she had to learn how to do fingerwaves, and those exact style hairdoes because it was mandated by the State. She'd come home and practice on all her girlfriends (including me) and my grandmother laughed when I came home with a style she hadn't seen since the Depression. Many of those women had the same style.

If you haven't read this book yet - do so. It's called Under the Banner of Heaven, by J. Krakauer. It's about this fundamentalist Mormon sect, and goes in-depth with women who escaped to the outside world. Be prepared to be extremely angry. This *group* should be gone after in every state they reside in. Rape should not be hidden behind *religious freedom*.

[yardwork]

149. It's odd, because the hair styles are from a different period than the dresses.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but the hairstyles look like the ones popular during the 1910s - the Gibson Girl period, sometimes called the Edwardian era. The period between the turn of the century and WWI. These hairstyles were popular especially among women along the eastern seaboard, including newly liberated women who were going to college and getting the vote. That was a fairly progressive time in U.S. history. They were accompanied by enormous hats and very complex dresses.

The dresses, on the other hand, look like prairie dresses from the westward migration decades earlier. I think that's the effect that this cult is trying to replicate - a supposedly "pure" bygone era when every family supposedly had a Bible in their little prairie house and women knew their place. Of course, any real exploration of the history of that time and place...well, never mind.

[TankLV]

242. it's because they ban all the gay people...

their fashion sense would be MUCH more improved if they just "allowed" a few in to oversee things properly...

now don't get me started on that AWFUL architecture...

[Quantess]

60. Who knows, the unibrow might be a genetic trait.

Intermarriage among close relatives is producing children who have two copies of a recessive gene for a debilitating condition called Fumarase Deficiency.

They predict the scale of the problem will increase dramatically in the future. Wyler, who has lived in the polygamist community most of his life, said he expects residents to continue marrying close relatives.

"Around here," Wyler said, "you're pretty much related to everybody."

Fumarase Deficiency is an enzyme irregularity that causes severe mental retardation, epileptic seizures and other cruel effects that leave children nearly helpless and unable to take care of themselves.

Dr. Theodore Tarby has treated many of the children at clinics in Arizona under contracts with the state. All are retarded. "In the severe category of mental retardation," the neurologist said, "which means an IQ down there around 25 or so".

According to community historian Ben Bistline, most of the community's 8,000 residents are in two major families descended from a handful of founders who settled there in the 1930s to live a polygamist lifestyle.

"Ninety percent of the community is related to one side or the other," Bistline said.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635182923,00.html

[axollot]

110. Call me shallow - but I REALLY want to get a wax strip between....

that poor woman's eyes! STAT! LOL - ok, non shallow time.....I can imagine how heartbreakin it is to be seperated from your kids. Not all of these woman are culpable, just stuck, with no where to go, no one to help them etc. Hopefully, now they can sort stuff out and get kids back with at LEAST the mothers. Supervised for a while of course.

Cheers
sandy

[Donnachaidh]

134. Many of those women probably suffer from Stockholm Syndrome

They all seem to be too anxious to get back with their *families* to me.

If they were really on the up and up they should submit to being checked out, so as to keep something like this from happening in the future.

It sucks - and the law needs to come down hard on those polygamist bastards.

[axollot]

241. I've some experience with having my kids taken from me.....

and it's a gut wrenching experience where you MUST prove you are innocent. The nuts and bolts of the situation in FL during that time was any allegation made - kids taken and you proved through a series of hoops that your a good parent. What I had done, and I know it's selfish but I was desperate - after the car accident that disabled me and going through pain mngmnt I was going weeks at a time with a migraine from the injections done in my neck. I was told this is the best it would get. In desperation, I ask my sister to pick up the kids for the night. Once they left I tried to kill myself. From that alone, and my sister being a childless bitch thought I wasn't able to raise the kids. Did I need help? YES. But help wasn't offered - they destroyed my eldest son through systematic abuse - MY OWN SISTER (NO I do not talk to her anymore) abused my eldest till he felt worthless. The only reason he never complained to anyone was because he didn't want his little brother, who was not being abused being sent to a foster home, and them being separated.

So I know the pain of having your children taken from you. My eldest is now 18 and doesn't live at home, but my 14yr old son is and A/B student, drug free and very normal. My 4 year old was NEVER part of the BS we went through. I fought back and won (also fired the doctor that was giving me the migraines and now, with proper pain medications and other meds I'm functional - even if I can no longer work but I'm without the need for anti-depressants).

Like I said, I believe, that most of the younger children can go back to their mothers. *under supervision* but regardless of the damage by the compound - the damage it can cause young children to be taken from their mother is something you can never take back.

I'm not condoning the behaviour done at the compound but do believe there are still good mothers who themselves were abused. It's going to take a lot of counseling and other hands on help from the community and government agencies to allow them to have a normal life.

Point is, no matter what happened at the compound - the pain of having your kids taken from you is as close as you can get to them dieing. At least with my sister, I spent all holidays, family dinners, birthdays, visits etc with them - that was why my eldest didn't tell about how he was being abused. He didn't want me to worry and to be removed to a place where he would only see me 2 times a month, for an hour. So he put up with the abuse silently. I hate my sister for what she did to me and to my kids. And I do take full responsibility for my actions and did the case plan given to me by the DCF and the court. Sometimes, it's a disgrace that Family Court is closed.

Cheers
Sandy

[katty]

137. totally creepy, like the start of a horror movie

[Savannah_H]

154. reply

I want to hear her voice...have a link?

[elehhhhna]

166. I feel sorry for them, somewhat, given that they're brainwashed and all,

but boy HOWDY if I were one of them I'd end up in the spankin shed for yanking that unibrow right in the center until it was raptured right offa her face..

I'd go to hell but she'd thank me for it one day.

[seabeyond]

11. quiet, whispery.... yes. i noticed last night and thought what... train voice 101

ya....

[Fridays Child]

2. Here's a video link. All I can say is ugh.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4654643&page=1

[CTyankee]

3. Thanks, I forgot to add the link!

These women truly are stranger than fiction, IMO.

[snooper2]

89. which video?

I can't find :(

[XemaSab]

163. Holy shit

DAMN these women are FREAKY. :scared:

[mainegreen]

4. eyebrow. n/t

[CoffeeCat]

5. This entire situation is so alarming...

These freaks are pedophiles. They use religion to validate their pedophilia and
abuse.

I can't believe that we allowed these people to live at the center of a Texas city, knowing
what was happening.

Adult men having sex with underage girls--is illegal. Period. Why was this allowed to go on?

When this story first came out, it was reported that half of the adolescent and teenage girls who
were taken into custody--were pregnant.

Law enforcement did the right thing by storming the castle. They'd better follow through, get these
children away from these pedophiles and their enabling wives--who often participate in the abuse.

The Constitutional rights of these children are being violated. Their lives are not their own and they
have no liberty.

This is just sick.

[atreides1]

13. And yet another believer in Rights and the Rule of Law

"These freaks are pedophiles. They use religion to validate their pedophilia and
abuse."

Besides what you've seen and heard on the news, do you personally have any proof of your allegations? And the name calling is a sure sign of immaturity.


"I can't believe that we allowed these people to live at the center of a Texas city, knowing
what was happening."

Who knew what was happening, did you? If you knew why didn't you report it to the authorities? By the way as much as some would like to change it, this is still a free country and people can still choose to live where they want.


"Adult men having sex with underage girls--is illegal. Period. Why was this allowed to go on?"

True, but anyone having sex with an underage girl, not just adult man, is committing a crime! This wasn't "allowed", most crimes are not allowed to happen, that's why they're crimes. It happened in a closed religious society.

"When this story first came out, it was reported that half of the adolescent and teenage girls who
were taken into custody--were pregnant."

What's the current information now?

"Law enforcement did the right thing by storming the castle. They'd better follow through, get these
children away from these pedophiles and their enabling wives--who often participate in the abuse."

Initially it was the right thing to do, but they still haven't found the girl who made the phone call. Now they are saying that they got two phone calls, one from Texas and one from Arizona. The courts will decide on what is best for the children, based on the law, not emotion. But, remember that the children that are taken from their parents will possibly be placed into foster care. Anyone have a gage on how well the foster care program in Texas is? Once again you make accusations with no proof, show us your evidence, not what the media is reporting.


"The Constitutional rights of these children are being violated. Their lives are not their own and they
have no liberty."

Let's not forget that the adults also have Constitutional rights, because it seems that in everyone's zeal to protect the children the rights of the parents may be tossed into the trash! And the most frightening thing to me is that many here who speak about rights and the rule of law are more then willing to forget about the rights of the parents based on the alleged crimes that have been committed.


What was it that Jesus said about casting the first stone?

[Cerridwen]

51. Do you understand what you are defending?

Do you know the history of this cult? Have you read any of the posts on this board in which the criminal practices of this group have been exposed and explained?

Please do. You may want to re-think your defense of this particular group's "religious freedom".

[verges]

132. self delete

[zbdent]

6. What wouldn't surprise me about this situation is

that they'd probably be the types who would be distributing all that crap about how Mohammed took an underage bride ...

[Wizard777]

18. It wasn't just Mohamed. Many of the old testament characters did too.

Old enough to bleed. Old enough to breed was a biblical practice. Along with polygamy. I can't really call these pedophiles for several reasons. This is something that isn't being driven by perversion. They are subscribing to anceint customs and traditions that we have deviated from. In reality it's is we who are the deviants. Also they consider them to be adults not children. The guy that has his 40 yr old wife dress up in a catholic school uniform is more of a pedophile than these people. In his mind he's having sex with a child. In their minds they are having sex with other adults.

[NNN0LHI]

20. Nailing people to a cross was "normal" in biblical times also

Want to let religious sects here in America go back to that?

How about some religious nuts here want to bring back stoning to death.

Let them go because we are the deviates for not wanting it?

Are you nuts?

Don

[Wizard777]

22. We have not deviated from the practice of execution.

Much like them we have changed the methods. But not the practice. None of this changes the fact that these people are being prosecuted for their religious beliefs and customs. People say these customs are being forced on the Children. But religion usually is. Does anyone ever ask the infant if they want to be Catholic before running down to the church to have them baptized? No they don't.

[NNN0LHI]

29. And if a girl wants to leave the Catholic church later there is no problem

On the other hand if a girl has been used as a breeding tool since she was "old enough to bleed" as you put it she is messed up for her entire life.

I still think you are nuts.

Don

[LanternWaste]

52. counter-proposal available via open media

"But religion usually is. "

And yet, there's usually a counter-proposal available via open media which the children of the sect members do not have access to. They receive one and only one perspective whilst all others are denied to them.

Allowing this free access of information is what usually prompts an individual to reject or accept a religion on their own terms.

The catholic student may readily reject catholicism as there are many available option presented to them in the course of every day life. Not so with the children of this sect.

[axollot]

130. NO - BUT, now that my boys are older.....

I support totally whatever religion or belief they will have. Right now, they have no interest in church only my 4 yr old and my 14yr old has some. I gave them the Catholic religion as something to have as a base - that was all.

Interestingly, since they go to Catholic School too - my eldest who is 18 and out of school is going totally out of his way to make sure he will be there for his sisters baptisim - a little late I know, but it's being done on her B-Day too. It's family traditional and cultural for both sides of the family. And it's far from harmful.

Cheers
Sandy

[Wizard777]

209. It's not particularly harmful now. But the RCC does have a very bloody history.

But the reforms brought about that transformed the very harmful RCC to the relatively docile RCC of today were made by the church. Not the State. So even if they are out there trying to torture Jews into becoming good Later Days Saints. There is still hope for them.

[zbdent]

25. I understand that ... but then, Islam is the current nasty that has to be

demonized to the max ... and not long ago, there was a real nutjob who was making sure that the easily duped were brainwashed with a propagandist pamphlet ...

Of course, it wasn't too long ago in U.S. history that a female was becoming an old maid if she wasn't married right out of school ...

[Wizard777]

31. Right and there were states who's age of consent was 14.

Here in Maryland I think our age of consent is still 16. In all honesty I may be a bad person to speak on this subject. Because at my age it's hard to have sex with anyone without kinda feeling like a pedophile. I'm 76. If I have sex with a 50 year old woman. Our advanced age doesn't change the fact that I was 26 years old when that woman was born. It's still a May December romance. Even though younger people might see it as more of a Christmas Eve New Years Eve romance because we're both old by their standards.

[Ghost in the Machine]

33. Do you seriously NOT understand the difference between you sleeping with a GROWN WOMAN,

even though she may be 26 years younger than you, and having sex with a child?

"I'm 76. If I have sex with a 50 year old woman. Our advanced age doesn't change the fact that I was 26 years old when that woman was born."

WOW!.... just... WOW!

It never ceases to amaze me that there are people who defend pedophiles and pedophilia....

[High Plains]

38. Do you seriously NOT understand what pedophilia is?

It's not having sex with teenagers. Shouting PEDOPHILE in the present case is not only incorrect, it's just plain inflammatory. You're using propaganda language; it adds heat, but not light.

Definitions (why do I have to repeatedly post these?):

http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html

Pedophilia
Definition
Pedophilia is a paraphilia that involves an abnormal interest in children. A paraphilia is a disorder that is characterized by recurrent intense sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies generally involving: nonhuman objects; the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner (not merely simulated); or animals, children, or other nonconsenting persons. Pedophilia is also a psychosexual disorder in which the fantasy or actual act of engaging in sexual activity with prepubertal children is the preferred or exclusive means of achieving sexual excitement and gratification. It may be directed toward children of the same sex or children of the other sex. Some pedophiles are attracted to both boys and girls. Some are attracted only to children, while others are attracted to adults as well as to children.

Pedophilia is defined by mental health professionals as a mental disorder, but the American legal system defines acting on a pedophilic urge as a criminal act.

Description
The focus of pedophilia is sexual activity with a child. Many courts interpret this reference to age to mean children under the age of 18. Most mental health professionals, however, confine the definition of pedophilia to sexual activity with prepubescent children, who are generally age 13 or younger. The term ephebophilia, derived from the Greek word for "youth," is sometimes used to describe sexual interest in young people in the first stages of puberty.

The sexual behaviors involved in pedophilia cover a range of activities and may or may not involve the use of force. Some pedophiles limit their behaviors to exposing themselves or masturbating in front of the child, or fondling or undressing the child, but without genital contact. Others, however, compel the child to participate in oral sex or full genital intercourse.

The most common overt aspect of pedophilia is an intense interest in children. There is no typical pedophile. Pedophiles may be young or old, male or female, although the great majority are males. Unfortunately, some pedophiles are professionals who are entrusted with educating or maintaining the health and well-being of young persons, while others are entrusted with children to whom they are related by blood or marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Pedophilia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Ephebophilia or Podophilia.
Pedophilia or paedophilia (Commonwealth usage) is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction of adults to prepubescent children. A person with this attraction is called a pedophile or paedophile.<1> The ICD-10 and DSM IV, which are standard medical diagnosis manuals, describe pedophilia as a paraphilia and mental disorder of adults or older adolescents, if it causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.<2>

Research into the etiology of pedophilia has been confounded by imprecise use of the term "pedophile" to describe those accused or convicted of child sexual abuse under sociolegal definitions of "child" (inclusive of both prepubescent children and adolescents younger than the local age of consent), rather than the correct usage that describes adult sexual attraction specifically to biological children. <3>

[Ghost in the Machine]

43. Wow, you're dense, aren't you?

Please tell me how these cult members having sex with children ISN'T pedophilia...

"Definitions (why do I have to repeatedly post these?):"

Maybe because you don't understand them yourself? Try reading the OP, then applying your definitions to the relevant discussion.

Or are you just another pedophile defender??

[High Plains]

46. No, I'm not dense, but I think you are blinded by something.

One more time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Not to be confused with Ephebophilia or Podophilia.
Pedophilia or paedophilia (Commonwealth usage) is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction of adults to prepubescent children. A person with this attraction is called a pedophile or paedophile.<1> The ICD-10 and DSM IV, which are standard medical diagnosis manuals, describe pedophilia as a paraphilia and mental disorder of adults or older adolescents, if it causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.<2>

Research into the etiology of pedophilia has been confounded by imprecise use of the term "pedophile" to describe those accused or convicted of child sexual abuse under sociolegal definitions of "child" (inclusive of both prepubescent children and adolescents younger than the local age of consent), rather than the correct usage that describes adult sexual attraction specifically to biological children. <3>

The definition says SEXUAL ATTRACTION OF ADULTS TO PREPUBESCENT CHILDREN.

You appear to be part of the problem alluded to in the second paragraph: THE IMPRECISE USE OF THE TERM PEDOPHILE...

As far as I know, the FLDS is accused of arranging marriages with post-pubescent teenagers, not pre-pubescent kids.

Legislatures, in their infinite wisdom, can say anything is anything. That doesn't make it so. The US Congress says marijuana is a "narcotic." It's not. Calling a 15-year-old or a 17-year-old a "child" and anyone who has sex with her a "pedophile" may be written into the law somewhere, but that's not pedophilia by the standard definitions.

Screaming PEDOPHILIA! is not useful. It's propaganda language.

[axollot]

116. Legally and technically you are correct -

The term pedophile is reserved usually for the monsters that go after pre-pubescent girls/boys - like 4-9 yr olds sometimes even YOUNGER!.

As a mother of a 4 year old I feel quite strongly about pedophilia and find it rather frightening, but we must put somethings in perspective and not jump to conclusions.

The mother's are VICTIMS too. Both by the compound and now the State. With FLDS the STATE is SATAN - the BEAST to them.

Ya, a lot of shit went down here. However, there are mothers of chidlren well under age - again that 2-10 yr old range that were never married off or abused besides the lack of education amongst other things that *should* be reunited with their MOTHER.

They will have to speak to every kid first and you know the pregnant ones - the older ones, will be questioned first.

Cheers
Sandy

PS - if I made the call, I wouldn't come forward and let them show my face on TV - she still has to deal with these people on some level for possibly the rest of her life - OFFCOMPOUND.

[Ghost in the Machine]

125. Yes, I'm blinded by hatred of people who think it's ok to fuck children.. and the people who defend

them. You can throw out terms like "sociolegal" or anything else you want, but the bottom line remains the same. The sick bastards fuck children. Kids. Non-Adults. Whatever you want to call them. It's against the law, and it's wrong. Period. No amount of definitions or excuses will change that.

"As far as I know, the FLDS is accused of arranging marriages with post-pubescent teenagers, not pre-pubescent kids."

If you defend people who fuck children you're as sick in the head as they are. Period. Deal with it. "Pedophile" is an accepted term in our society to define adults who fuck children. Your arguments and definitions amount to absolutely NOTHING. Once you realize that, and stop defending people who fuck children, you'll be better off.

[yardwork]

170. A male ex-member of the sect disagrees with you - he says they're pedophiles.

http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=807750

[Wizard777]

47. I don't see this as pedophilia. The pathology is totally different.

This is what your not understanding. What people object to is the age difference. In my example when that woman was 14 I was 40. If we had sex then I would be a pedophile. But that age difference never goes away. So why is it unacceptable at 14 and 40? But perfectly acceptable at 50 and 76. I'm still older and more experienced. I can still provide her with a lifestyle someone her own age probably couldn't.

[axollot]

124. the difference is manipulation - it's much easier to corrupt and..

manipulate someone who is 12-17 then it is as they get older. That is the reason it's illegal. As it should be. Now, the law coming down hard on a girl underage having sex with someone who may be in her school but is 18 - that to me is different. It's exploration and the 18 yr old boy is about the same maturity as a 15-16 yr old girl. I don't condone it, but I wouldn't prosecute either unless it was rape.

Cheers
Sandy

[Wizard777]

131. Oh you mean like telling them Iraq will have WMD's if you don't have sex with me.

Now what was the you were saying about corruption and manipulation? Sorry I just had to go there.

[Ghost in the Machine]

136. What *you* see as pedophilia isn't relevant to anything. I'm sure these sick fucks don't think THEY

are pedophiles either. They're just marrying and fucking teenagers to please their god, right? Hiding behind the cloak of religion, like any other coward.

Again, if you honestly don't see the difference between a 40 year old fucking a 14 year old and a 76 year old fucking a 50 year old, there's something wrong with your thought processor. Seriously wrong.



Wrong again, Mr Wizard. If you can't distinguish the differences between an immature 14 year old GIRL and a mature 50 year old WOMAN, you probably shouldn't be around EITHER of them, but at least you seem to have some inkling that it IS wrong to fuck a 14 year old. You see, the difference is that the 14 year old GIRL isn't fully developed in her mental and/or emotional capacities, whereas the 50 year old WOMAN usually is. They've been around the block a few times, you know?

"I'm still older and more experienced. I can still provide her with a lifestyle someone her own age probably couldn't."

Yes, I'm totally sure of that... if you mean a lifestyle like having to change your Depends, refill your prescriptions, give you spongebaths and steady your walker for you. It's way more probable that she would have to do it for you within a couple of years than it is for her having to do it for someone her own age...

"What people object to is the age difference." :spray: :rofl: what a load of bullshit! :rofl:

[Wizard777]

142. So the entire state of Louisiana are "sick fucks?" There 12 is legal.

If you are married.

SUBPART A. OFFENSES AFFECTING SEXUAL

IMMORALITY

1. SEXUAL OFFENSES AFFECTING MINORS

§80. Felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile

A. Felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile is committed when:

(1) A person who is nineteen years of age or older has sexual intercourse, with consent, with a person who is twelve years of age or older but less than seventeen years of age, when the victim is not the spouse of the offender; or

[Wizard777]

150. Ut oh! even Texas. here we thought it was Bush that made them Sick fucks.

Sec. 21.11. INDECENCY WITH A CHILD. (a) A person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years and not the person's spouse, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex, the person:

(1) engages in sexual contact with the child or causes the child to engage in sexual contact; or

(2) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person:

(A) exposes the person's anus or any part of the person's genitals, knowing the child is present; or

(B) causes the child to expose the child's anus or any part of the child's genitals.

(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor:

(1) was not more than three years older than the victim and of the opposite sex;

(2) did not use duress, force, or a threat against the victim at the time of the offense; and

(3) at the time of the offense:

(A) was not required under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure, to register for life as a sex offender; or

(B) was not a person who under Chapter 62 had a reportable conviction or adjudication for an offense under this section.

(c) In this section, "sexual contact" means the following acts, if committed with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person:

(1) any touching by a person, including touching through clothing, of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of a child; or

(2) any touching of any part of the body of a child, including touching through clothing, with the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of a person.

(d) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a felony of the second degree and an offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a felony of the third degree.









Sec. 22.011. SEXUAL ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally or knowingly:

(A) causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of another person by any means, without that person's consent;

(B) causes the penetration of the mouth of another person by the sexual organ of the actor, without that person's consent; or

(C) causes the sexual organ of another person, without that person's consent, to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; or

(2) intentionally or knowingly:

(A) causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of a child by any means;

(B) causes the penetration of the mouth of a child by the sexual organ of the actor;

(C) causes the sexual organ of a child to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor;

(D) causes the anus of a child to contact the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; or

(E) causes the mouth of a child to contact the anus or sexual organ of another person, including the actor.

(b) A sexual assault under Subsection (a)(1) is without the consent of the other person if:

(1) the actor compels the other person to submit or participate by the use of physical force or violence;

(2) the actor compels the other person to submit or participate by threatening to use force or violence against the other person, and the other person believes that the actor has the present ability to execute the threat;

(3) the other person has not consented and the actor knows the other person is unconscious or physically unable to resist;

(4) the actor knows that as a result of mental disease or defect the other person is at the time of the sexual assault incapable either of appraising the nature of the act or of resisting it;

(5) the other person has not consented and the actor knows the other person is unaware that the sexual assault is occurring;

(6) the actor has intentionally impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the other person's conduct by administering any substance without the other person's knowledge;

(7) the actor compels the other person to submit or participate by threatening to use force or violence against any person, and the other person believes that the actor has the ability to execute the threat;

(8) the actor is a public servant who coerces the other person to submit or participate;

(9) the actor is a mental health services provider or a health care services provider who causes the other person, who is a patient or former patient of the actor, to submit or participate by exploiting the other person's emotional dependency on the actor;

(10) the actor is a clergyman who causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person's emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman's professional character as spiritual adviser; or

(11) the actor is an employee of a facility where the other person is a resident, unless the employee and resident are formally or informally married to each other under Chapter 2, Family Code.

(c) In this section:

(1) "Child" means a person younger than 17 years of age who is not the spouse of the actor.

(2) "Spouse" means a person who is legally married to another.

[Wizard777]

157. North Carolina too!

(b) A defendant is guilty of a Class C felony if the defendant engages in vaginal intercourse or a sexual act with another person who is 13, 14, or 15 years old and the defendant is more than four but less than six years older than the person, except when the defendant is lawfully married to the person.

[Wizard777]

158. South Carolina's Constitution

SC CONSTITUTION SECTION 33. Age of consent. -- No unmarried woman shall legally consent to sexual intercourse who shall not have attained the age of fourteen years.

[Wizard777]

160. Mississippi too! look at all the "sick fucks" that will allow a husband to have sex with his wife.

§ 97-3-65. Statutory rape; enhanced penalty for forcible sexual intercourse or statutory rape by administering certain substances.








(1) The crime of statutory rape is committed when:





(a) Any person seventeen (17) years of age or older has sexual intercourse with a child who:





(i) Is at least fourteen (14) but under sixteen (16) years of age;





(ii) Is thirty-six (36) or more months younger than the person; and





(iii) Is not the person's spouse; or





(b) A person of any age has sexual intercourse with a child who:





(i) Is under the age of fourteen (14) years;





(ii) Is twenty-four (24) or more months younger than the person; and





(iii) Is not the person's spouse.





(2) Neither the victim's consent nor the victim's lack of chastity is a defense to a charge of statutory rape.

[JerseygirlCT]

175. Allowing 12 yos to marry? Yeah, that qualifies as sick, for sure. nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

180. Comprehension is your friend, embrace it, don't fear it...

"A. Felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile is committed when:

(1) A person who is nineteen years of age or older has sexual intercourse, with consent, with a person who is twelve years of age or older but less than seventeen years of age, when the victim is not the spouse of the offender; or..."

Ok, Mr Wizard... now post the age of consent for legally getting married in Louisiana... No one under 18 can get married without parental consent and any parent who gives their consent to their 12 year old daughter to marry someone 19 or older is off in the head, too....

Your defense of, and making excuses for, pedophiles is sickening to me.

[Wizard777]

184. I'm merely citing the law.

Also that's with parental consent. It says nothing about the consent of the minor. So basically what these people are doing is LEGAL in La. That's all I'm saying. But hey kill the messenger why don't you.

[girl gone mad]

205. oh....

Yes, I'm totally sure of that... if you mean a lifestyle like having to change your Depends, refill your prescriptions, give you spongebaths and steady your walker for you. It's way more probable that she would have to do it for you within a couple of years than it is for her having to do it for someone her own age...

I hate to say it, but I had the same exact thought.

Why do so many older men think they are doing younger women a favor by fucking them? Young women desire men their own age. Luring them away with money and status is screwed up and usually doesn't work out too well (as Paul McCartney recently discovered).

[Wizard777]

214. Some young chicks actually dig older men.

I've had more than my fair share of 20 somethings chasing me. It's not always the money and status. I understand your point about Paul McCartney. Heather was a Gold Digger and it was obvious to all. But try telling that to Celine Dion who is married to a much older man. She vows and declares their love is so beautiful she has to sing about it. So should Celine change the lyrics to because you loved me to because you wanted to fuck me? I think not.

[janx]

250. ...

Yes, I'm totally sure of that... if you mean a lifestyle like having to change your Depends, refill your prescriptions, give you spongebaths and steady your walker for you. It's way more probable that she would have to do it for you within a couple of years than it is for her having to do it for someone her own age...

:rofl:

Oh my God. I'm 50! 76? "Provide for" ? Oh my GOD! :rofl:

[Dorian Gray]

146. The difference is

14 is too young to understand or comprehend all the complexities of sexuality.


And whether you want to argue about calling it pedophilia or not, I don't care. But, it IS Statutory Rape, as the teenager is still too young to give informed consent. It is still illegal, immoral, and just plain old disgusting.

[JerseygirlCT]

220. Because a 14 year old is a child and cannot consent.

It's that simple. Why do you find that so hard to understand?

Two adults - whatever their ages - can both consent. There is a reason that children are considered children - by sane adults, and by law. They make *think* they can make informed decisions, but we recognize that they are not yet capable of doing so.

So regardless of the circumstances, a 40 year old and a 14 year old is both illegal and immoral.

[Wizard777]

244. First of all pedophillia only applies to prepubescents. The word is highly misused.

Second of all in many states minors can marry with the consent of their parents. Once the minor is married the minor become emancipated and can consent to sex with their spouse. In many states marriage is a valid defense to the charge of statutory rape. In South Carolina it's written into their constitution. Now before you go getting mad at me and accuse me of defending pedophiles (even if you are incorrectly using the word.)I did not make these laws. I do not enforce these laws. All I'm saying is that what they are doing is legal in many states. So don't get mad at me. Get mad at the states that have deemed this to be legal.

[JerseygirlCT]

248. First of all

Nowhere did I use the term pedophile. So you're going to have to rework your response there.

You're also stringing together lots of assumptions and thin legal arguments: states that allow minors to marry with parental consent, layered on top of those that might not recognize rape within a marriage... It doesn't hold up very well, frankly.

Besides, what they are doing is not legal, because they are not married to these children. Only one marriage to a customer. So living with, and having sex with, a child remains illegal, and immoral.

I'm not sure why you're so set on defending this heinous behavior.

[Wizard777]

251. Polygamy is part of the church doctrine and therefore has first amendment protection.

I'm not really defending it. Just trying to be sure it's actually illegal before I condemn it. My only real interest is in defending the religion and it's practice as provided for by the first amendment.

[JerseygirlCT]

252. Actually, *belief* is protected. *Practice* is not always protected

That's not at all a clear line, constitutionally.

And when that practice violates someone else's rights, then it makes it much easier to draw that line.

You can believe as you will. You cannot freely act on that belief in opposition to the law, or when it harms someone else.

Would you be defending someone whose religious "practice" demanded human sacrifice?

[Wizard777]

256. Practice is protected.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Congress can make no law prohibiting the practise of a religion. As long as participants are willing. I would indeed say that includes human sacrafice. The secular uses of human sacrafice made by the Pentagon and our Justice System are quite legal. The human sacrafices made by the Justice system aren't always voluntary. In fact some people fight it to their last breath. So why not Religious Human Sacrafices?

[JerseygirlCT]

257. You're incorrect.

And while you can continue to restate your assertions, they won't be any more accurate.

Religious practice is not uniformly protected. In fact, every single right enumerated in the Constitution is balanced. We have a pretty strong tradition in favor of free speech, for instance, but you cannot yell "fire" in a theater, to use an old example. Your free speech rights are balanced against the rights of others to be safe.

Likewise, your rights to religious practice can be curtailed by laws already on the books, or by the safety or rights of others.

There are some cases where the laws on the books have been changed due to constitutional challenges. Again, this is among our rights. But an illegal act remains an illegal act until and unless the law is changed. Adult sex with minors is such. Polygamy is such. Rape is such.

[sendero]

261. By your "logic"..

... I can found a church that believes in killing idiots, and that makes it ok.

Bullshit, just like your position.

[TankLV]

243. umm - because a FIFTY year old is an OLD ADULT and not a YOUNG CHILD!!!!

god - how dense can you be -

Two ADULTS haveing a relationship - even if one is 70 and the other is 30 is still ADULTS, and in no way shape or form considered CHILDREN!!! once you pass into adulthood - the age difference means NOTHING.

of course there are other issues that come into play - like the old man marrying a gold digger (or visa versa for an older woman and younger male gold digger) where the older one hasn't retained the ability to make rational decisions, etc...

but that issue is one of criminality, etc., not the SEXUAL ATTRACTION TO CHILDREN...

[Wizard777]

245. I'm 76 and have retained a sharp mind disciplined in many sciences.

What I'm taking issue with is that you are incorrectly applying the word Pedophilia to this. Pedophilia applies to a sexual attraction to prepubescents. Once a person enters puberty. It becomes ephebophillia or hebephilia. This is what you need to understand.

You need several more DECADES of education before you can get anywhere near a place you can call me dense. Yes I refuse to accept thing that are incorrect as the Gospel truth. No matter how many times you incorrectly explain this to me. You will never get me to accept a falsehood as the truth. 1+1 does not equal 3. This is not pedophilia. It's ephebophilia. Yes there is a difference.

[hedgehog]

48. How does that work now that the normal age of menarche can now be as early as

12 1/2 thanks to our wonderful world of chemicals.

[Withywindle]

196. 12 and a half was AVERAGE in the early 1980s

or at least it was in my school. I was that age and I was paranoid about being a late bloomer since half my 7th-grade class already had it. Did you never read 'Are You There God, It's Me Margaret'? I think Margaret was 11 or 12 for most of that book. It was written in the early 1970s.

I grew up in a rural community, lots of farm food, not particularly chemical-laden. Mom told me she was 15 (in the '50s in Brazil, but that was because she'd been a sickly child - most of her friends were much earlier).

Now, 7 or 8, that's freaky. But anything between about 10 and 13 doesn't ping me as abnormal at all and I still don't get why people react as if that's a new thing.

(This has NOTHING to do with age of consent for having sex, BTW - not going near that snake pit!)

[girl gone mad]

206. Age of first menses..

doesn't really to relate to being physically or intellectually ready for sex. For instance, pregnancy is considered high risk in girls under the age of 16. I believe the youngest human female ever to give birth was 5 or 6. She was still a child herself, virtually a toddler. Being biologically able to make babies shouldn't be the standard for legal access to a girl's vagina.

[Dorian Gray]

143. How ancient are their customs

when polygamy in North America, particularly in their religion, has only been practiced for two hundred or so years.

They may trace polygamy back to the Old Testament, but it wasn't practiced in perpetuity.

And though Joseph Smith brought back the practice, it was the FLDS that perverted it by marrying 13 and 14 year olds.

[old mark]

8. Religion?

I read a comment to the MSN online article about the "raid" yesterday - someone saying this is an attack on religion, and the evil leftist government is showing its true colors, etc, etc,...
This whole thing makes me sick.
People like these folks in Texas love and promote ignorance, fear and hatred in order to keep control of their little kingdoms.
This is their idea of religion?
And, I agree, the media is really backing off from this - let's not offend any organized child molesters.
There must be a lot of money/political power involved with this somewhere.

mark

[Wizard777]

26. This is an attack on religion.It's the most heinous attack on religion.

It's an attack on the religions children. It's an attack on the religions future. I'll have to double check but this could constitue an act of genocide.

[Cerridwen]

42. Are you truly defending infanticide, incest, rape, welfare fraud, child abandonment,

tax fraud, torture, and physical abuse in the name of "religion"?

Yes, I would advise you do a lot of "double checking".

[Quantess]

45. In my opinion, Freedom of Religion only works if the individuals have any individual freedom,

as we would hope that each individual would have some freedom to choose their own destinies.
These women, and most of all, the children and teenagers, have very little freedom.

And, not to mention, statutory rape is against the law, no matter what your religion says.

Edit to add: And the extra teenage boys are thrown onto the streets. Can't have too many cute young guys around, stealing the girls away from the old men.

[Wizard777]

56. The lack of freedom. What is the root cause?

Can it be the self seclusion because of persecution for their religious beliefs? I think so. I also practise a religion that could be deemed illegal. Marijuana(green Hom)and Cocaine(white Hom)are sacraments in my church. It's the conflict between the law and the religion and the resulting persecutions that drives them underground. It drove Christianty underground. If durring prohibition. The Catholics were not given an exemption to the law. It would have driven them back underground.

But I have always said that freedom of religion is preserved by freedom from religion. It all comes down to freewill. If it is the freewill of all involved. Then interfering with that freewill is the crime in my eyes and Gods. Not even He will interfere with your freewill.

[Quantess]

68. I agree with your last paragraph.

Free will, freedom from religion, freedom to switch religions, are all part of Freedom Of Religion. But, my point is that many of the members of YFZ don't have these freedoms. The only ones who aren't prisoners are the elder men. That's not a very good balance. It's like the taliban here in the USA.

[Wizard777]

74. Then why did the women return after being liberated?

It can't be coercion or a fear for the safety of thier children from the old men. The old men aren't holding the children Hostage. The state of Texas is. So why did they go back?

For a person to have freewill. They have to be able to do something that you wouldn't do. Regardless of how dumb or destructive to them you believe it to be. My freedom of religion isn't about what you believe. It only exists in what I believe.

[IdaBriggs]

82. Because they believe their eternal souls are hostage. nt

[Wizard777]

90. That is their belief and their right. If THEY change that belief it's freewill.

If YOU change that belief. It's brain washing. Would you go to a synagouge with a pork roast and make them eat it to conform to YOUR belief that they can eat pork without going to hell?

[Kitty Herder]

204. They need accurate information so they can make that choice freely. I was a bit like them once.

Here's my story. I posted it further down, but I'm re-posting it because you need to know. These women live in a prison of the mind, like I once did. The key to the prison door is information that they are denied access to.

This is my story about how women stay in religions that abuse them. They think they'll go to hell if they leave. I used to be like them in many ways, and I was raised in the "normal", mainstream Mormon church.

It's sad. They believe that God is a woman-hating, child-molesting, polygamous asshole. I know that's what I, as a mainstream Mormon believed, although I justified it to myself and would never have worded it so harshly as I just did here. Imagine how much worse that belief is for FLDS or other polygamous groups.

I used to be like these poor women, captive to a religion that hates women. And I was only a member of the mainstream Mormon relgion, not one of the cults that broke off from it. But the God they worship is the same and the fate of women in the eternities is the same. In Mormonism, when women go to heaven (the Celestial Kingdom) their wonderful reward for a life well-lived is to become a plural wife and be a spirit mother to endless spirit children while the husband they loved in this mortal life gets it on with his hundreds of other wives. It's like the FLDS lifestyle writ large.

I hated it so bad, and was so internally conflicted about it, because I truly believed it. I hated the way women were treated in the Church and mentally rebelled at being denied the "priesthood" that is given to all Mormon men, and at the things I was told I must do as a proper Mormon woman: get married as soon as possible to the first "worthy" return missionary who wanted me and then begin having children immediately. We girls were told by our seminary teachers that if we married while still in college, we were supposed to drop out and have kids. Going to college was just a way to meet your "eternal companion." Most of my friend did just that. They married at nineteen to guys they'd known for about three months, got pregnant and dropped out. Now they're depressed and have to use anti-depressants to cope. Look up the statistics on Mormon women and anti-depressant use.

I absolutely hated the idea of what eternity would be for me as a woman. When I was a teenager, I decided I would rather go to "outer darkness" and told God that. I figured that, in the words of John Milton, "The mind is its own place, and in it self can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven." and that I could make a heaven of that hell. Better that than be an eternal brood mare. Yet still I believed it was true.

It wasn't until I was in my early twenties and came across some of that absolutely forbidden "anti-Mormon" literature (i.e., the true history of Mormonism)online and dared to read it that I was able to realize what a lie it all was and leave it behind for good. I remember I started reading about real Mormon history online in the university computer lab, and stayed there for five hours, missing my classes that day. The next week, I neglected my classes, spending hours in the special collections secion of the library reading about the contradictions in Mormonism, Joe Smith's real history, the origin of the Book of Abraham, etc., etc. (The books that could be perceived as anti-Mormom have to be kept in special collections or they will be defaced by "good" Mormon kids.)
After finding out the truth, I felt lighter, freer, happier and oddly, more in touch with God, than I ever had in my life.

These polygamous women need someone to place some good, credible, "anti-Mormon" literature in their hands. And since many of them can't read, they need someone to read it to them.

[Iris]

107. What else would they do?

And that's freedom?

[Wizard777]

114. They were offered accomodations at a shelter. Probably for abused women.

Except that apparently they don't believe they are being abused.

[Iris]

138. And maybe they're not. But if they know nothing else, then how do they really know?

And that's the problem with the whole thing. If this religion is so great, then the girls and boys should be given the opportunity to choose it for themselves at an appropriate age.

[Wizard777]

195. So the RCC shouldn't baptize anyone until they are at least 18?

My parents did exactly that with me. They left my religion up to me. If I even decided to participate in one. They fiercely guarded me from people that tried to impress their religion upon me. As a result I took that responsibility very serious. I actually ended up studying the philosophy of all the worlds religions through out time to find the one I thought was right for me. I actually settled upon Mazdaism or Zoroastrianism because of the Ahu Vata. That is the induction ceremony in which you choose to follow Ahura Mazda (Wise Lord.) They are very tolerant of other religions. You actually have an obligation to God to enjoy the life he gave you. It fit me perfectly in every way.

I also grew up in a prodominantly Roman Catholic neighborhood. I watched my friends have that religion shoved down their throats and beaten into them. I even had one friend that wasn't supposed to hang out with me or anyone else because we weren't Jehova's witnesses and we were all going to hell. They all also grew up to be normal well adjusted adults.

[LanternWaste]

123. Patty Hearst stayed too, yes?

"So why did they go back?"

Patty Hearst stayed too, yes?

What may appear at first glance to be free will also allows for other possibilities. Shock, brain washing, habitualization, etc.

There's the story of a elderly Jewish man who, after being rescued from a concentration camp in Apr. of 45, refused to leave. He stated simply that this was "now his life". The U.S. army removed him (much like CPS today) from his current environment. Three years later, he was quiet aghast when told he'd said that and did not believe those words came from his own mouth.

The mind has creates many defenses that are not obvious unless one is trained and looking for the additional possibilities...

[Kitty Herder]

191. Some women do return. Many don't. Look up Tapestry of Polygamy.

I think most women who return do it because they don't know any other way of life. The outside world is scary to them and hard to adapt to.

[Dorian Gray]

153. Catholics don't have to drink wine at Mass

so Prohibition wouldn't have done anything to our services.

What church is it that sacraments are Marijuana and Cocaine? I know a few people who would love to join that place of worship.

[Wizard777]

168. Mazdaism or Zoroastrianism.

But much like Christianity. There are raging debates and arguements over what the Green Hom And White Hom actually were. Just like the Christians debate what Jesus meant by "wine." Some say it's the alcohol or spirits bearing beverage. Other say it just grape juice. Many of the Scholars believe the White Hom was an extraction of ephedra or what is now called Crystal Meth. But through a process of trial and error. I have found that cocaine to be the better fit for what it's supposed to do. Marijuana or Kanabosom was used as part of a holy annointing oil in Judaeism.

[janetle]

73. I agree

[JerseygirlCT]

179. Well put. nt

[Kitty Herder]

188. Absolutely!! nt

[LanternWaste]

59. hat large group of people in the sect were systematically killed?

Precisely how could this be interpreted as an act of genocide? What large group of people in the sect were systematically killed by state or federal authorities?

[Wizard777]

70. That's ethnic genocide. Genocide is also applied to political groups.

One way to commit political genocide against a group is to not allow them to pass their beliefs and customs on to their children. If you do not allow Catholics to pass their beliefs, customs, and traditions on to their children. Take their children away from them because the parents will teach them Catholicism. Catholics face extinction.

Technically though this maybe more of a case of Theolocide. They are tryinng to kill the religion that the customs and traditions eminate from.

[uppityperson]

91. Oh that is funny. Having gone round with "is what's happening in Iraq genocide" stuff

Intent to wipe out or seriously harm a group based on religion?

[snooper2]

93. You are fucking off your rocker...

They have kid after kid, raise them with their "beliefs" then one day when that girl is 14, they say, hey, time for you to get married.

Oh, and your getting married to your uncle next door,

Oh, and there is this thing called fucking, and your 56 year old uncle is going to stick his cock in you..

Oh, and your going to get preggers and have babies, your supposed to have lots of babies...GOD SAYS SO

Oh, and when your daughters just begin to ripen, we are going to marry them off to some old pervert so he can molest them...


Totally fucked up...

[Wizard777]

112. Some of us actually know of what we speak.

And then they came for you. Why should the Neocons allow war protesters to keep their children? They believe the neocons perfect and holy war is bad. They will pass these treasonists beliefs on their children. Some have even used their children to make treasonist statements agianst the war. CHILD ABUSE! Do these children really believe that or are they just parroting their parents treasonist sentiments? The only way to protect these children from the psychological harm of their treasonist parents is to take them from their parents. Have good neocons raise them with good neocon beliefs and values as orchastrated by the talking points. War is good. Peace is bad. After all liberalism is a mental disorder. You're only a parent and can't possibly know whats in your childs best interests. That what government is for. Except that's Genocide. As defined by the Convention on Genocide. You might want to read up on it before trying to tell me I'm off my rocker. I know of what I speak.

[snooper2]

122. false analogy..

You know what, you go ahead and feel almighty "protecting" the "rights" of these crazy fucks...

half of the kids KIDS they picked up are preggers...you think those 13 and 14 year old girls are getting it from the 14 and 15 year old boys on that compound...right....

The truth of what is going on there will all be reported on soon enough. Maybe you can contribute some money to the pervs defense fund.

[trotsky]

102. Genocide? Get real.

What you're basically saying is that you can engage in any reprehensible behavior you want, as long as it's part of your religious tradition. Then it's off-limits, must be respected, etc. FUCK that.

[Wizard777]

108. No, what I'm saying is that under the Convention on Genocide.

Forcibly transfering the children of a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group to another group is Genocide. But only if you go by the law Mr Bush. It's the law when it serves your purposes and still the law when it defeats your purposes. Surely your better and smarter than a damned Bush.

[trotsky]

141. Gee, why did you leave off the first half of that law?

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy...a group

No intent to destroy, only to ensure that the laws of the land (concerning marriage, age of consent, being held against one's will) are followed.

Nice try, though. "Mr. Bush."

[Dorian Gray]

159. I totally 100% agree with you here

Legal limits on criminal behavior in religious sects should be upheld by our society.

[Wizard777]

161. What happens when the Muslims come here and outlaw your religious practises.

I know that's different. Right?

[Dorian Gray]

213. It is different....

because a) The "nefarious" Muslims aren't coming here to outlaw my religious practices, and b) though there have been instances in which priests and nuns have abused their authority and done horrific things to chidlren in my religion, I fully support any efforts by our law enforcement system to punish the child abusers within my own religion.

I think it is reprehensible that their crimes were covered up and that people in positions of authority abused our trust. Those people who obstructed justice and who perpetrated the crimes should be punished to the maximum extent of the law.

And why do I feel that way? Because child abuse and rape are reprehensible crimes. They can NOT be justified as religious practice. It is damaging to teen age girls, physically and emotionally. There is nothing you can say that would convince me that these men's actions should be protected by the first ammendment. They are criminal acts, hidden from the government. These men, along with plural marriage and statutory rape are guilty of a multitude of crimes, including child abandonment (see what happens to their young men), tax evasion, and scamming the government for unemployment and Social security distributions.

[Dorian Gray]

151. So, you posit

that arranged marriages for girls who are 13, 14 and 15 years old should be an allowed religious practice in our country? You see absolutely nothing wrong with that?



As for genocide, that's laughable.




The FLDS is a joke. The sole purpose of the "religion" is to propagate and perpetuate the practice of polygamy. They are so far removed from any of the other spiritual teachings of the LDS church; their sole mission is to testify to plural marriage. The only way that they can do this is to abuse their children and their wives into submission while removing them from the rest of society.

[Wizard777]

162. Actually in many states marriage is a valid defense against statutory rape.

I have posted only a few of those states. I'm sure there are many more.

[Dorian Gray]

212. In how many states

can a 14 year old get married legally?

[Wizard777]

216. That I honestly don't know. But many States will allow minors to marry with the permission

of their parents. That is with the permission of the parent. Not the minor. So the law wouldn't prevent an arranged marriage. Can't put the Yenta's out of Business. The Orientals would have objected too. They also do arranged marriages. With them their husbands are selected at birth. Sooooo. I'm not trying to defend pedophiles. I just want to be sure that there is more to this than culture clash. At this point I can't honestly say that there is.

[Dorian Gray]

215. IF....

If those marriages are legally binding marriages. Which these aren't. You know why? Polygamy is illegal in this country, and so is marrying minors. So, unless it's wife #1, there is no legal marriage on the books. So.... Statutory rape charges can be applied.

So... no defense.

[Wizard777]

217. Some states the law says legally married. Others simply say "the spouse."

They make no mention of the legality of the marriage. So in "The Spouse" states you still have a valid defense.

[gollygee]

240. "Spouse" has a legal definition

which involves legal marriage.

[JerseygirlCT]

178. I'd go a step further, Dorian

I think the sole purpose here is to set up a system within which older men are free to rape girls and abuse children. They are in search of absolute power, and religion for them is simply a tool. Plural marriage is just an excuse to exercise that power, and to continue to add younger and younger women to their conquests.

[Dorian Gray]

211. I totally agree with you here

Shocker! I know! ;)

It is about power. There may be some people who buy into the necessity of plural marriage to get into heaven, but those people are the brainwashed children and women. Not the men who are scamming the government and abusing their wives and children.

[Justpat]

255. I agree 100%. n/t

[Beaverhausen]

152. please educate yourself about the FLDS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints

You have no idea what you are talking about. These people have been abusing children for decades.

[JerseygirlCT]

176. Their "religion" gives them no freedom to harm others. None

No right to abuse women and children, to rape and torture and imprison them.

They can attempt to wrap it all up in "religion" but that's completely absurd. Their religious rights stop at the bodies and minds of those women and children.

[Wizard777]

181. I agree with that. But you don't seem to be wanting to allow the women and children to consent .

I can't accept it as ipsofacto automatic abuse. This is why. I see little difference in telling a child not to leave the compound and not to leave the block. Is that really "imprisonment." There are a lot of parents guilty of that one. What's the difference between them telling their children not to talk to outsiders and you telling your children not to talk to strangers. Is that how you keep the dirty lil secrets of your child abuse? You tell your children not to talk to strangers. Are there any circumstances under which these people can be good loving parents?

[JerseygirlCT]

186. Have you heard the stories from some of the women who have

escaped? About how the children are "broken" from infancy with the likes of water torture?

And young women, pregnant, in their early teens is plenty ipso facto. SOMEONE has broken the law. Since the young men are tossed out, that leaves older men. Pregnant 16 yos = evidence.

Read some of the accounts of the women who've managed to get away. They're chilling.

[Scout]

192. "allow the women and children to consent"

Yes means nothing when no is not an option.

[Wizard777]

219. I understand that. But can the women consent to being submissive to the men?

Can they consent to not being a mans equal? I'm all for equal rights. But it is a right and just like any other right it can be waived.

[JerseygirlCT]

224. They can consent, but they must always be free to retract that

consent. These women were never afforded that option. The only ones who are no longer there managed escapes.

So that "consent" has to be ongoing.

And it can NEVER come from a child. Never.

[Kitty Herder]

185. What about the religious freedom of the girls and women who are trapped in this cult?

They are beaten if they try to leave. (I'm sure I don't need to mention their freedom to control their own bodies and not be raped.)

What about the religious freedom of the boys who may want to stay in their religion and community but are instead dumped on the side of the road in St. George?


This cult can be free to practice its relgion, but it must stop its abusive, criminal practices.

As they say, your right to swing your fist ends where your neighbor's nose begins. These polygamists' right to practice their religion ends where girls' and women's bodies and inviolate rights to their own religious freedom begins.

[Wizard777]

254. Yes but can YOU respect their religious freedoms?

I have a hard time calling these women "trapped" and "imprisoned." Their children have been removed and they have been removed. So why did they return to the compound instead of going to shelters? At that point those evil old men have no hold on them. At this point they are afforded freedom. Freedom exist in a choice. They have chosen to return. Can you respect that decision?

Now before you try going off on some rant about womens rights. You need to know that my mother was a suffragette. She fought long and hard for womens rights. But she was talking to one woman about the movement. She had little or no interest in it. She was quite happy with life as it was. Eventually she told my mother point blank. If you cannot respect my right to be submissive to my husband as the bible declares. You need to get out of my house right now. Your position is reminding me of my mother. That woman was brainwashed. All that other stuff. But what it ultimately came down to is that the woman had made a decision and she was happy with it. My mother did not respect that decision. At some point you have to drop your agenda and respect their decision to stay. Otherwise your better than them evil old men forcing their views upon them.

[janx]

258. They went back because they knew nothing else. They

don't know how to survive on their own.

Interesting. My grandmother was a suffragette, and it's safe to say that she spoke to more than one other woman about the matter. ;-) She died in 1962 at the age of 62. She graduated from Vassar. She married a man who was her friend for life. She worked and volunteered as well. They enjoyed fly fishing together. They were equals and lovers and stayed very happily married until the day he died. She had no interest in being "submissive," as you have put it, because he never expected her to be, and therefore, she didn't have to be. It was never, ever, part of the marriage.

This isn't a rant or an "agenda," man. This is about love, respect, and decency. These women were indeed trapped and imprisoned, and to compare them to your mother is ludicrous. They were born and raised to be property--it has been going on for generations in this so-called church. Unlike your mother, they knew nothing else, and they had no choice.

[Kitty Herder]

262. What the fuck do you mean? What freedom do they have if they are beaten when they try to leave?

What freedom do they have when they already have a baby or two at sixteen and no education, no familiarity with the outside world and no way to support their kids? They're then stuck.

No one's religious freedom allows them to take away another's. No one should be forced to marry for that matter.

Now if adult, consenting women choose this lifestyle that's just fine. I've personally known at least one who has chosen that lifestyle, and am aware of several others. But that's not the issue at stake here. And if those women are complicit in child abuse, then the state should step in and remove the kids from the home. The women's religious freedom shouldn't allow them to abuse the kids anymore than the men's should.

(edited to add: The one I know and the ones I've heard of who chose it as adults were raised in it as children. I'm not personally aware of women who were not raised in polygamy joining up, although I'm sure there are some.)

[LanternWaste]

54. What "evil leftist government"?

What "evil leftist government"? Who's stating that?

[janx]

259. The media have to be careful.

They love the salaciousness of this story because it ups their ratings, but you're right--they can't go too far in anything that resembles a combination of child molestation and religion just now. The money and power come from their ratings and thus from their advertisers. It always works that way.

[KharmaTrain]

9. Uniformity...What Makes These Cults Attractive

There are those who want/need certainty in their lives...answers to everything and to feel both accepted and secure. They want a world of order and believe conformity demonstrates their devotion that assures their accpetance and security. Sadly, for many, this is the only world they've know...born into it, indoctrinated early and often and they can't escape or question...but there are others who willingly join in to escape from the pressures of the "modern world"...to find the safety in a uniform lifestyle/society.

In many ways, there's little difference in these women and a cloister of nuns or orthodox Jewish women or Islamic women who cover up their bodies...it's part of the acceptance that they can't question as they've never had to.

[CTyankee]

14. Orthodox Jewish women are not in cults.

I live in a neighborhood with a number of Orthodox families. I know some of them personally (one was my landlady several years ago). These women are intelligent, capable, strong. They are well educated, work out in the world and not at all like the cult women. Their religious customs do not ever include abuse of kids, sexual or otherwise. Nor of them. I have never experienced anything other than equality between the sexes in their daily lives.

Please do not spread such nonsense about Orthodox Jewish women. It is insulting to compare them with the Texas cult. The orthodox women I know have been unfailingly kind and generous spirited. I am just appalled that you have applied this label to them. I can only guess that you do not have friends and acquaintances who are orthodox.

[KharmaTrain]

37. I Have Lived With Orthodox All My Life...

I've had several friends who have chosen an Orthodox way of life and I assume they are happy in their choice. I am not questioning intelligence...some of our brightest minds are and have been Orthodox. This has nothing to do with intelligence or even sex....it has to do with the lifestyle. Have you met a Lubuvicher? It's not the world you see outside, it's the one inside. It's the concept of women being considered as property, segregated from the men in both religious practice and leadership and a social subserviance (specific protocol where women must walk behind their men). It's a lifestyle based on the stricted interpretation of the Old Testament and Talmud where women are "owned". Again, you see from the outside...

Now no where did I say that Jewish women, or Catholic women or Islamic Women...or even the poor women in this case as being the source of abuse...if anything, they are the victims.

Peace...

[CTyankee]

49. Well, I have known a fair number of different orthodox Jewish people

over the years and have not seen what you described. Perhaps you ran across a very minor sect somewhere.

I didn't accuse you of saying the women caused the abuse. I said the orthodox families I know are not abusive to kids or to women, altho some individuals may be, but as a group, no.

Just my experience both in New York and here in New Haven, shich has a strong Orthodox community...

[aikoaiko]

10. In the late 1980s I conducted a interview at Short Creek/Colorado City for a sociology class

I was inexperienced and naive, but I ended up finding Jane, a 50-something year old mother of 16 and one of 7 wives. She was also the "town rebel" -- as much as one could be and still be there.

To make a long story short, she embraced her culture as the only one she has ever known and believed that it was God's will for men to more than one wife if chosen to do so. She also expressed feeling like she was stuck with it because it was the only thing she really knew. As strange as I found this response, I realized it really wasn't all that much different most other people and their peculiar cultural practices.

She also wished her community would stop being so shy and let outsiders in. She wished they would let women leave if they wished, and let boys stay even when they didn't embrace their culture.


I didn't know enough to ask about forced child brides and the subject didn't come up.

[npincus]

12. I know! They wear identical "Little House on the Prairie" dresses that vary

only in (pastel) color. So how does the polygamy thing work; does the guy say, "Bring me the "Blue" one, or the "Orange" one, or the "Yelloe" one, etc...."

Totally creeped out. What the hell do the guys look like?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

36. Typically the way this cult works

is you marry that wife ages and you marry again there are not 9 adolescent wives

[Mist]

15. As to the inbreeding: many of the polygynous families are descended

from the same ancestors who founded Hildale/Colorado City, leading to an incredibly high number of children born with fumarase deficiency, which results in severe retardation.

[NNN0LHI]

16. They remind me of the last group of US fundies who went over the edge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

[aikoaiko]

19. To be honest, I was suprised that there wasn't a gunfight

There is a lot a bitterness about the raids on Short Creek/Colorado City in the 1950s. A sort of "never again" attitude.

[fed-up]

21. can you say brainwashed?-all had same "talking points" "it's about the children"

the leader must have learned his brainwashing techniques from watching MSM-he just switched "Saddham was WMD" to "this is Zion"

and taught them to avoid answering any questions
"it's about the children"

[Wizard777]

24. Can a person have belief that are different from yours without being brainwashed?

[slackmaster]

27. I strongly believe that, but these particular women and children are systematically exploited

The behavior of the men in that group is way out of line.

[Wizard777]

32. Every religion has planned your life for you from craddle to grave and beyond.

To deviate from this life plan condemns you to horrors and torments so terrible that your mind cannot comprehend them. All of this designed to keep the church coffers full.

[LanternWaste]

55. e can go to the Users Manual

Yet, we can go to the Users Manual (their Bible/Bibles) for this church. If there is no mandate that seclusion and polygamy are indeed part and parcel of the fundamental tenets, then I think we may safely conclude that it's not the religion in this case that has the member's life 'planned out' as you so vaguely put it, but merely individuals who themselves are members.

[Wizard777]

62. The seclusion is due to persecution.

It drove the christians underground in Rome and the Jews underground in Germany. Both religions were deemed by the respective governments to be illegal. Why couldn't the practioners just walk away from those religions and it's customs?

[LanternWaste]

65. They (Christian and Jews) had full knowledge...

"Why couldn't the practioners just walk away from those religions and it's customs?"

They (Christian and Jews) had full knowledge of both their own religion, and the alternatives. These children don't have knowledge of the alternatives.


What systematic, tolerated persecution of their church is taking place in America to tempt seclusion?

[Wizard777]

76. How about being arrested and sent to jail for marrying more than one woman?

At one point in time the church and the state were one and the same. We have yet to separate the religious ceremony of marriage from our secular government. This is a bit of state and church confusion we consistently refuse to clear up.

[uppityperson]

95. That makes no sense.

"We have yet to separate the religious ceremony of marriage from our secular government."

Of course not since 1 is religious and 1 is secular. However, we have separated secular marriage from religious marriage.

Marriage is legal if the parties fit the legal, secular, gvt guidelines and have given over the right amount of money for the fee and signed the legal, secular gvt paper to marry. No religious ceremony is necessary.

Simply having a religious ceremony does not make a marriage legal (most places in USA).

The religious ceremony is optional. It would be nice if more people understood this.

[Wizard777]

99. That makes no sense because marriage began as a religious ceremony.

As long as you had the blessing of the church. What the government though didn't matter. See: King Henry VIII. That is where marriage in America became both a church and state function.

[uppityperson]

104. It began that way, but since has separated out to secular.

"We have yet to separate the religious ceremony of marriage from our secular government."

As I wrote, a wholly secular marriage is legal, a wholly religious one isn't. The religious one now is optional. Some people want marriage to be wholly religious, as it used to be, but it isn't.

[Wizard777]

118. Well I believe in both religious and secular marriage. It's a real simple system.

If you are married in a church. Your marriage is governed by the laws of the church. If you are married at the court house then your marriage is governed by the laws of the state.

[LanternWaste]

115. Is being arrested and sent to jail for one's religion a systemic part

Is being arrested and sent to jail for one's religion a systemic part of this counties culture? If not, you're simply being over-dramatic (which, I'm beginning to suspect that anyways) by use of this one example.

And you can easily read the relevant court cases dealing with marriage within the context of the secular vs. the religious law-- the rules have already been made. I can cite the cases for you if you'd like...

[Wizard777]

120. "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This was the free exercize of religion long before this country was even founded.

[LanternWaste]

145. We also burned witches--part and parcel of the free exercise.

We also burned witches--part and parcel of the free exercise. But we've since learned that there are particular aspects to religion which are absolutely harmful. And a person's right to exists outweighs the ability to practice religion in any way one sees fit.

[Wizard777]

218. No "we" didn't. You might have. But I haven't.

But I do agree that the Puritans violated the hell out of the witches rights. The question is this. Is that about to happen again?

[slackmaster]

61. That is definitely NOT true for all religions

:eyes:

[Wizard777]

64. Okay, then name just one that doesn't.

I have studdied many of the worlds religions and I can't think of one. Not even paganism.

[LanternWaste]

66. Maybe you should more clearly and precisely define, "fully planned".

Maybe you should more clearly and precisely define, "fully planned".

Ass it stands, your phrase may distance things that no church has ever viewed as falling under its umbrella of authority...

[Wizard777]

77. The churches planning of your life actually begins at your parents wedding.

It officially begins at your baptism or induction ceremony. It ends with your funeral ceremony. Then the planning of your after life takes over.

[LanternWaste]

113. All other things being equal...

All other things being equal, do mainstream American churches plan where you work? Who you marry? Any an all dietary habits? Any and all clothing habits? What type of car you may or may not drive?

If not, I think you may need to re-evaluate your phrase.

But out of idle curiosity, how was my life planned by the church (seeing as how both my parents were churchgoers)? What's the manifest used?

[Wizard777]

129. At one point in time they did and in some countries still do.

The caste system came from Zoroastrianism and is still in use here in America. There have been some changes to it. But basically still a tradition of craftsmen passing on the craft. But the church isn't the only one that has planned out your life from craddle to grave. The secular government has also done this. They are far more invasive than the church.

[LanternWaste]

147. You're not able to list precise and relevant details

So, it's not systemic. As a matter of fact, we can call it an aberration-- a refutation of the norm, if you will.

So it's not really part and parcel of our culture.

You're not able to list precise and relevant details as to how religion runs a person life. You're simply being overly dramatic. Again.

But see my later post-- we're done.

[Wizard777]

169. So the caste system is not systemic? With illogic like that.

Your damned right we're done here.

[slackmaster]

78. Unitarian Universalism

:hi:

[Wizard777]

88. The UU's are very close to my own religion, Mazdaism.

But they have planned on your life being a search for the truth. I'm quite sure they can aid you in this endevour from craddle to grave. Religion is a system of living. You could probably go as far as calling it a lifestyle. But if it doesn't help you through life. It's not religion.

[uppityperson]

92. Does UU plan your life being a search for the truth to keep their coffers full?

"To deviate from this life plan condemns you to horrors and torments so terrible that your mind cannot comprehend them. All of this designed to keep the church coffers full."

Secular humanist here.

[Wizard777]

103. Are you saying that they accept no money from their membership?

Maybe they don't spend their money their own preservation and perpetuation.

[uppityperson]

105. Of course they accept money. But they don't plan your life to keep their coffers full.

There is a difference between planning your life to keep their coffers full and accepting money. Though I agree that there are religions that do plan your life to keep you in the fold and their coffers full. Just not every religion.

[Wizard777]

140. They have to plan your life to have a life plan. If they don't have a life plan they are not

a religion. The question is can you have a theology without having a religion. Yes you can. Theology is the study of God. Religion is how you live in accordance to your understanding of God. You can study something without ever putting what you have learned into practice. I do believe the UU's to be theologists. But until they put knowledge into practise. They do not have a religion. The UU is more of an ecumenical organization than a church or religion.

[Habibi]

128. Preach it, brother!

:hi:

[Cerridwen]

50. If they are not brainwashed, then what do you call it when human beings

practice torture, infanticide, incest, rape, etc. on such a large and organized scale for over a hundred years?

You may be correct that they are not "brainwashed"; I'd be more inclined to use the term psychopathic tendencies or psychopaths.

[High Plains]

69. Show me some evidence for your claims, please.

Who has been charged or convicted of torture?

Who has been charged or convicted of infanticide?

Who has been charged or convicted of incest?

Who has been charged or convicted of rape? I know the answer to this one! Warren Jeffs and one other guy, I think.

I hope you have something more than "survivor's" stories to go on. Such stories may present part of the FLDS reality, but to rely solely on them is akin to relying on Miami Cuban exiles for an accurate portrayal of Cuba or relying on Sean Hannity to accurately poretray the Rev. Wright.

[Cerridwen]

80. I'm putting it together now - in the meantime you can search my posts

about this group as well as the multitudes of posts and links provided by others on this board.

It's taking me a while as there are so many sources out there.

I find it interesting that you require conviction of crime as proof of crime. I find it truly enlightening that you so easily dismiss the words and stories of women who have spoken of their experience within this group.

By your standards, shrub is innocent of lying us into "war" and until such time as all the players are convicted, the stories from whistleblowers from within the current (mis)administration should not be "solely" relied upon as evidence. Perhaps you do feel that way; I don't know.

My post will not convince you of anything of which you do not want to be convinced. I could provide you with a mountain of first person evidence, and you would deny the entire mountain to focus on a technicality.

Since you will not be convinced until someone or someones are convicted, you may have a long wait as this group is just now being exposed to the legal system in this country and some of these stories are just now being listened to; since so many have dismissed these women's stories for so long; much as you appear to do.

edit to add: by the way, your knowledge of the number of convictions for rape and child sexual abuse is wrong; there have been multiple convictions. the links will be in the completed post.

[High Plains]

119. I appreciate your efforts.

I do not dismiss the words of people who have left the group. I'd just like to hear from some who are not so alienated. There are thousands (?) of these people; a relative handful have left. Perhaps it's because the rest are brainwashed (do you mean indoctrinated into values othter than the ones we're indoctrinated into?), but I suspect it's just a little simplistic to deny agency to all those people.

Perhaps it is unfair to demand criminal charges or convictions as proof of the allegations, especially given the apparently cozy relationship between the FLDS and some local law enforcement in Utah and Arizona. On the other hand, do we just believe any claim that is made?

It seems like there are two separate but interrelated issues bothering people here: arranged marriages and underage arranged marriages. I'm not especially fond of either, but I don't know that I am willing to destroy their community to prevent them from living that way.

[Cerridwen]

229. As promised

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3163212&mesg_id=3163212

[High Plains]

39. Damn those creepy, evil mothers....caring about their children!

They think they can pull the wool over our eyes!

But you can't fool us progressive totalitarians, no siree.

[LeftCoast]

40. Yeah, they care so much about their kids they let them get raped and thrown out of the community

They let their 14, 15, & 16 year old daughters be raped by men 4x or more their age while letting their young boys be tossed out of the community to maintain a ratio of men to women that benefit a few select group of older wealthy men. Yeah...they are doing a bang up job of protecting their kids all right!

:wtf:

[Lars39]

53. Don't forget the waterboarding of infants...

:puke:

[LeftCoast]

101. That I hadn't heard about

I don't think I want to know the details.

[LanternWaste]

63. Damn those creepy, evil Child Protective Custody case workers.

Damn those creepy, evil Child Protective Custody case workers... caring for child safety over rape.

But you can't fool us trendy, anti-authoritarian progressives, no siree.


Six of one, half a dozen of the other I guess...

[Wizard777]

83. Take away the alphabet soup and what they do can also be called kidnapping.

Also keep in mind that there is not yet any proof of rape. They can't even locate their victim. So who phones in the false complaint that allows CPS to take your children. To slander and libel you before the entire country if not the world? Once these unsubstantiated false accuasations have been made. Can we really ever trust you with your children again?

[LanternWaste]

117. It's not kidnapping

It's not kidnapping if the rule of law dictates that safety overrides parental motivations. CPS didn't slander and libel anyone-- any quotes on that one? (Ex TX CPS worker here...).

Although, I've realized you throw out words like 'kidnapping' for dramatic purposes (or to validate your own thoughts-- either way, it doesn't fly, kid)

[Wizard777]

135. remove the alphabet soup (rule of law.) What you have is people taking children without their

parents permission. That is indeed kidnapping. Also CPS cannot remove children simply on an accusation of abuse. They must have proof of abuse before they remove the children. They can't even locate their victim. If that person even exists. If they don't locate the victim. Any evidence of abuse they have gathered is inadmissable in court. Illegal search and seizure. But I don't think you want to discuss that rule of law.

[LanternWaste]

144. you consider the rule of law as being irrelevant

If you consider the rule of law as being irrelevant, then there we have it. An impasse.

CPS can remove a child if suspicion exists. I worked for CPS. I know this. It's legal and it happens whether you agree with it or not. The removal of the child is not a law enforcement duty, therefore illegal search and seizure rules do not apply. The Sheriff's Dept. and TX State Troopers were initially present when CPS removed the kids to protect the workers and the children.

"But I don't think you want to discuss that rule of law." Actually, it appears more and more that you're simply redefining what 'rule of law' means, what the intent of other posters is, and what the means and motivations of the state agencies are.

Or, in other words-- you're talking about things you don't really know too much about.



So, if it helps-- take the last word and reply with a witty or clever passive-aggressive staement designed to heighten your own sense of what you think you know. For my part, I'm done-- I don't discuss weather with people who believe weather doesn't exist, and I won't discuss the actions of CPS with someone who has little to no idea what that agency may or may not do in any given circumstance...

Last word to you, mi amigo...

[Wizard777]

172. How well do you subscribe to the rule of law?

In many states, and much to my surprize including Texas, marriage is a valid defense to the charge of statutory rape. In South Carolina it's written into their Constitution. Also many states allow for the marriage of minors with parental consent. Not the consent of the minor. The consent of the parents. Here is another rule of law you may not like. Until the marriage is consummated (the bride & groom have sex.)The contract of marriage is neither legal nor binding. It can be annulled or declared void because the contract has not been fully executed. But once you have sex. The marriage cannot be annulled. You must get a divorce.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

225. But these are polygamous marriages to girls under the age of consent.

No girl in Texas can get married under the age of 16.

Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states as of 1890.

[Wizard777]

246. I understand that but there are states in which what they are doing is perfectly legal.

This another problem I have. It's with the denial of the doctrine of polygamy and it's theological. These people are living the religious doctrines of their prophet. The main church has droped the doctrine of polygamy. Joseph Smith was wrong about that. This is the problem with that. Joseph Smith cannot be wrong and still remain a prophet. Once they establish that Joseph Smith is wrong he cease to be a prophet and becomes a false prophet bearing false doctrine. These people have not strayed from the doctrine of their prophet. They are practising moronism as prescribed by Joseph Smith. They are staying true to his words. They are orthodox mormons. This gives them First Amendment protection.

Yes polygamy is illegal. Unless it is part of the doctrine of a religion. Then the first amendment says it is Legal. The spirit of the first amendment is that when the laws of man and the laws of God conflict. You are free to follow God even if doing so violates the laws of man.

[EFerrari]

84. They all looked like they've dissociated --

traumatized to the point where they're not really inhabiting their bodies or even their own minds. Heartbreaking. Some of them are children themselves. :(

[Kitty Herder]

194. They all look that way in person, too.

Ever been to St. George or Hurricane, Utah? You see tons of these poor things. They won't look you in the eye, and barely speak, even to each other.

[slackmaster]

23. They've been brainwashed into being kiddie-diddler enablers

It's pretty disgusting.

[ladjf]

30. The basic problem with all religious thought is that the basic

"truths" are fabricated. Once that rubicon has been crossed, who is to say who's fabrication is the "right" one to live by?

[Cerridwen]

35. I'm more than a little "creeped out" by some of the posters in this thread.

They are defending infanticide, welfare fraud, forced "marriage", child abandonment, rape, incest, torture, and government complicity in committing the aforementioned, for starters, and they are doing so under the rubric of "religious freedom".

[Ronnie]

41. Thank you.

My skin was starting to crawl.

[Cerridwen]

44. You're welcome.

They've apparently not been paying attention to all the information posted to this board about this group and its history.

At least, I choose to believe it's ignorance on their part at this point.

[ismnotwasm]

72. You know, that's quite kind of you

I admire your discretion. I'm choosing to believe (even at this point) they're wack jobs with fucked up agendas. I mean how disgusting can they get?

Never mind; that answer, I don't want to know.

[Cerridwen]

230. Fortunately, I got over it.

:D

[LanternWaste]

57. Even DU has its own resident member Loonies.

Even DU has its own resident member Loonies.

I do take note of their posts though-- looking for patterns... what/who they defend, their justifications, etc. It would be entertaining if not so damned... creepy.


Edited for spelling

[Wizard777]

94. You forgot satanism! They have yet to locate a victim.

Until you do this is all nothing more than slander and libel. Just think of all the horrible atrocities YOU can be accused of if WE don't have to produce a victim to these atrocities.

[Cerridwen]

228. A link for you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3163212&mesg_id=3163212

[elehhhhna]

249. duh! We're liberals, remember? WE LOVE THAT STUFF!

:sarcasm:

[Sheets of Easter]

58. I only have one thing to say after seeing that:

eee-ooo-eee-ooo-eee-ooo-eee-ooo-eee-ooo-eee-ooo.

Yeesh. It reminded me of "The Village."

[Ronnie]

75. Or "The Stepford Multiple Wives Club"

[Roxy66]

67. My 13 year old daughter was creeped out by them too...

We were watching the news this morning and they were talking to some of the women on the ranch and they were so creepy...the same words we used.

[High Plains]

71. C'mon all good liberals: Let's burn the witches!!!

[Jed Dilligan]

79. Big Love n/t

[Eric Condon]

81. This is happening in the United States in the 21st century.

Take a step back and just chew on that for a while.

[Cerridwen]

85. And people here are defending it.

Add that to your "chew"ing.

[Jed Dilligan]

98. I always say, if you don't like the age we're living in,

move to a different one. And I'm not talking about time travel.

[Xithras]

86. I'm creeped out by some of the posters here too.

So willing to shred the constitutional rights of American citizens based on little more than heresay evidence, media hype, and a single anonymous phone call that is increasingly looking like a hoax.

What I dislike about this entire situation is the fundamental premise under which this is happening. The state of Texas raided the compound, seized the children, and is NOW investigating to determine whether any crimes were committed. Stalin would be proud.

In this country, according to the traditional liberal ideals of freedom and equality, we usually investigate FIRST, and THEN arrest once we've determined which crimes have taken place, who the victims are, and who the perpetrators are. In this case, the government seized hundreds of children simply because they were a part of the religious group without ANY idea who the victims were or exactly what crimes may have occurred. These people were attacked because of a hunch and an anonymous phone call.

I don't agree with the FLDS beliefs in the slightest, but due process is a fundamental part of our freedom and it cannot simply be tossed aside under the flag of "protecting children". If crimes were committed, the perpetrators should be charged. But taking kids away without due process, direct evidence of a crime, or even a SINGLE person within the community stepping forward and asking for it? That's a civil rights abuse of the worst sort.

[ismnotwasm]

96. That's not true.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0410081polygamy1.html

[Xithras]

199. The guilt of one, or even a handful, does not justify this.

Can the state of Texas demonstrate that each of these fathers participated in the activities described by the informant? Can they demonstrate that each of the mothers allowed it to happen? Can they show that every single set of parents in that compound was guilty of the crimes alleged by the anonymous informant? The Texas CPS claimed and is attempting to maintain custody of all of the children without evidence that all of the households were engaging in the practice. Opinion is irrelevant here, only prosecutable facts should be in play in a case like this.

That search warrant, if you read it, names specific men on the compound, and their under aged wives. To be exact, it names seven children and seven men who may be involved. There is one additional case which may be abusive, but the investigators could not ascertain whether the girl was actually under 18. That means, according to that warrant, there were no more than 18 people who should have been seized. It's interesting that NONE of those eight men were arrested.

In a typical molestation case, the police will arrest the adults suspected of molestation, and take the suspected victims into custody while the investigation is completed. I would have NO issue if that had happened here. Instead, the police came in, grabbed all the kids, and allowed the adults to go free. According to their own warrant, which you conveniently provided, there is only evidence that a few were abused, and they by only a handful of the adults on the compound. U.S. law doesn't typically recognize the concept of "guilt by association", and yet that seems to be the modus operandi embraced by the CPS in this case. Since the "association" is their shared religious beliefs, the Texas CPS is claiming that all members of the FLDS church are child molesters. Without evidence to support that claim, it's discriminatory and constitutes a civil rights violation.

[Wizard777]

97. Some of us are trying to understand their religion and it's practices before condemning or accepting

We aren't simply condemning them because they are other than our own religion and practises. This is the really preverted part. Doing this in the name of religious freedom. Your religious freedom to practice my religion as I understand it. I guess. :wow:

[Beaverhausen]

155. If you knew anything at all about it, you would not be defending it

you obviously don't. Please educate yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints'

[Wizard777]

177. Well I can't codemn it before I learn about it. Then claim to have made an unbiased decission.

Learning about it is what I'm in the process of doing. I will reserve any and all judgement until I feel I have been properly educated on it. That includes listening to their side and giving it credence.

[Beaverhausen]

183. Did you read anything at the link I posted?

[Wizard777]

198. Yes and that is on one side of the balances.

That's an external point of view. Now I need an internal point of view for the other side of the balances. Somewhere between these two stories lays the the truth. I also like to get things straight from the horses mouth. This is why. Back when the white man handled the black mans PR so to speak. They were Ni&&ers. They were murderers, rapists, and thieves. Every last one of them. When the blacks started handling their own PR during the civil rights movement. That's when all people started to find out that blacks weren't nearly as bad as the white man made them out to be. I don't want to fall into that trap with these people. They might not be nearly as bad as some are trying to make them out to be.

[Xithras]

201. I have to point this out: The ACLU defended the KKK, and were right to do so.

The KKK was/is a despicable organization, but the ACLU recognized that the attack on the organizations right to gather was a violation of their constitutional rights. They defended the constitutional principles surrounding the organization without endorsing or supporting the organization itself.

Those of us who are condemning the actions of the Texas CPS in this case are doing largely the same thing. I dislike fundamentalist ideology across the board, and whether we're talking about FLDS, Wahhabi's, or the Amish doesn't matter. Disliking them, and opposing their practices, however, does NOT mean sanctioning the outright violation of their constitutional rights.

Violating the human and legal rights of someone simply because you dislike their behavior and ideology is Bush logic. That's the kind of thinking that allowed places like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib to flourish. That's the kind of thinking that preceded every genocide in recent human history. These fundamental rights belong to EVERYBODY, or they belong to NOBODY. There is no middle ground.

I don't like the FLDS, but they have legal rights, and those rights were violated. Until the Texas CPS can show who committed what crimes, and to whom, the children should be returned to their parents.

[JerseygirlCT]

223. They have the right to speak, they have the right to assemble

Nowhere do we recognize a right to rape, torture, kill or imprison people.

Their rights have not been violated. Rather, the rights of their children have been defended. Or do women and children not count when we're worrying about rights?

The KKK was likewise free to assemble, odious as they are. They NEVER had to right to ACT on their hate.

It's the same situation here. Should these men wish to loudly proclaim the correctness of their views, that's their right. Should they wish to march around doing so, again, their right. Should they wish to ACT when those actions are illegal? No dice.

[Justpat]

253. The KKK has a right to assemble and they have a right to their

idiotic beliefs, but they do not have a legal right to ACT on their beliefs and kill
blacks.


The polygamist in Texas do not have a right to sexually abuse young girls.

Your religious beliefs cannot violate the rights of others to live unmolested.

[EFerrari]

106. I agree with that. These people were treated like cattle

and that's wrong EVEN if everyone of them is guilty.

[Ronnie]

109. "In this country..."

"...we usually investigate FIRST, and THEN arrest once we've determined which crimes have taken place, who the victims are, and who the perpetrators are."
Not when it comes to children.

[Xithras]

190. The inclusion of a child into the equation does NOT usurp the constitution.

CPS units should have no more authority than any other law enforcement agency. Like other law enforcement agencies, actions should only be taken against children and parents when they can show that crimes have occurred. To even suggest that the government should have the right to seize children without cause, simply based on rumor, is chilling.

[tabasco]

87. They sound like manson girls.

Very creepy. :scared:

[cynatnite]

111. A lot of these women truly believe...

as fucked up and as twisted as it is, they believe this stuff.

Chances are many of these women have been raised with much of these beliefs their entire lives. A lot of typical christians believe because that's how they were raised.

Brainwashed...no, I don't think so.

Indoctrinated...yes, I do.

[Greyhound]

121. Here's the ugly little truth that everybody dances around.

All "belief", as in faith in a concept that is not supported by any evidence or is countered by evidence, can only result from what we commonly refer to as brainwashing. An irrational certainty that something exists, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, is unnatural and can only be induced through consistent indoctrination throughout the years that the human brain is developing into what it will become.

[cynatnite]

126. I don't disagree with what you're saying...

I was raised in a fundie household. It's hard to break from.

But I know people who didn't start believing until adulthood. Perhaps they were susceptible to it from the beginning...I don't know. Seeds may have been planted years before. It could also be that some folks are so frightened of death that they cling to a belief system in order to deal with it.

[PhillyQuaker]

139. Welfare cheats, child beaters and rapists

This is very sad for the children.

[cynatnite]

148. Welfare cheats?

I haven't heard that before. Got a link?

Welcome to DU :hi:

[Beaverhausen]

156. here

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy69.html

According to law enforcement officials and others familiar with how plural marriage operates, the problems usually associated with polygamy include:

High levels of incest, child abuse and wife battering. But the crimes are rarely reported because of the secrecy surrounding polygamous communities, law enforcement officials say.

Widespread reliance on welfare. In the tiny town of Hildale, for example, along the Utah-Arizona border, as many as 50% of the residents are on public assistance, according to state and federal records. The fraud occurs when plural wives claim they don't know the whereabouts of their children's father.

Unusual levels of child poverty. For example, across the street from Hildale in Colorado City, Ariz., every school-age child in town was living below the poverty level, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates from 1997, the most current available.

Wide-ranging tax fraud. Polygamists often underestimate their income or, as in Green's case, don't file returns at all.

Limited educational opportunities. Last year the prophet of the Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints Church, a group excommunicated more than a century ago for practicing polygamy, ordered the town's children to stop attending public school, resulting in the closure of the local elementary school.

Overtaxed public services. Medicaid pays for more than one-third of the babies born in Utah, and plural wives account for a disproportionate share of those births, child welfare advocates say.

[NNN0LHI]

165. A judge needs to order some DNA tests for all to find out who the daddys are

That should pretty much end the questions.

Don

[cynatnite]

173. That is seven years old and focused on Utah...

It's not about the Texas group.

[Beaverhausen]

182. the Texas group is part of the group in Utah

Are you seriously defending these men?

[cynatnite]

189. How in the hell did you reach that conclusion?

I thought you were going to post a link about the Texas group and welfare fraud. I hadn't heard or read any report of welfare fraud by the Texas group. Just asking for a source is all.

You sure do jump to conclusions easy.

[Beaverhausen]

193. because its very well-known- they are all one cult

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8850332

Jeffs' son is one of two arrested at Texas FLDS compound
By Brooke Adams
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 04/08/2008 03:53:17 PM MDT


11:20 AM-SAN ANGELO, Texas -- The first man arrested at the YFZ Ranch in Eldorado is the oldest son of FLDS leader Warren S. Jeffs, according to former members of the sect.

On Monday, law officers arrested Levi Barlow Jeffs, 19, for interfering with the duties of a public servant, a class B misdemeanor. He was booked into jail but was released after posting bail.

Jeffs, 52, became president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, based in Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz., in 2002. He has been convicted in Utah of two counts of rape as an accomplice, stemming from a 2001 marriage he performed. He is now in jail in Arizona More Coverage

For a look at the history and beliefs of the FLDS and a profile of its leader, Warren Jeffs, go to sltrib.com/polygamy
Galleries and Graphics

[cynatnite]

197. Your link did not implicate the group in Texas...

They may be part of the same group, but that does not mean they both are guilty of the same exact things....for example welfare fraud. It's also entirely possible that those kinds of charges may be brought once the investigations are complete.

[Kitty Herder]

210. Understand Mormonism much? Apparently not. A unit of a Mormon church, even a fundie one, is

part of the same over-arching group. If you don't understand that the group in Texas is part of the same group as the one in the Arizona strip, you don't understand this story at all and you need to go back to the drawing board and inform yourself.

[cynatnite]

226. This has nothing to do with knowledge of mormonism...

I don't get the animosity over something as simple this. A claim was made in regards to welfare fraud and the Texas group. I asked for a source. A link about the group in Utah was used. Not what I asked for at all.

No one has offered anything that says the Texas group committed welfare fraud. Even being part of the same group in Utah does not mean they will be charged with welfar fraud. If this group in Texas did committ welfare fraud then charges will be brought when the investigations are complete.

I don't get the problem here. :shrug:

[Kitty Herder]

207. Ummmm....They're the same group. Just like a Mormon ward here in Utah

is part of the same group as a Mormon ward in Texas or Chile.

[cynatnite]

227. I never said they weren't part of the same group...

I said that so far nothing has been put forward that the Texas group committed welfare fraud. They need evidence to prove this group committed welfare fraud in order to file those charges.

I asked for a source when someone claimed that the Texas group committed welfare fraud. That was the first I had ever heard of it. Instead, I was given a link to an article that is almsot seven years old and in Utah. It wasn't what I asked for.

That's all there is to this.

[Kitty Herder]

231. The FLDS as a whole believe in "starving the beast" of govt. through welfare fraud.

They make a practice of it. Since the plural wives aren't technically wed to the husband under the law, they can lie and say that they are single mothers who don't know where the child's father is located.

Since the Texas FLDS are indeed part of the same group as the Utah and Arizona FLDS, one assumes they follow the same policies.

We're talking about a Mormon sect, here, not the kind of sect where each church, or parish or whatever is independent in any sense.

[cynatnite]

232. I understand what's being said and I'm not disagreeing...I just asked for a source...

There's no dispute they're related at all. It doesn't mean that the Texas group will be charged with welfare fraud since it happened at the Utah one.

That's it.

Now, other than guilt by association, does anyone have anything that says the Texas group committed welfare fraud?

[Kitty Herder]

233. The lack of understanding is shown here:

You said, "There's no dispute they're related at all."

No, not related. One and the same.

And I can't find any links about welfare fraud in the Texax compound, but I'm sure once they've dealt with the more pressing issues of child abuse, they'll investigate that.

[cynatnite]

234. You've basically repeated what I've said....

I've said...more than once...that if they find evidence they'll file the charges when the investigations are over.

What's hilarious, is that I wasn't arguing with anyone over it...I just asked for sources.

Oh, well. DU gets silly sometimes.

:hi:

[Kitty Herder]

235. It does get silly here, sometimes.

I find myself arguing with people over little issues like this, going in circles, wondering why I keep posting responses and then I feel like a fool.

No hard feelings I hope.

[cynatnite]

236. I feel the same a lot of times...

Sometimes I came away thinking what the hell was I thinking when I posted something. Just gotta laugh at ourselves sometimes.

But DU has it's moments that I just love. It's an addicting place.

No hard feelings at all here. I don't sweat the small stuff. Must be old age or something. :)

[kevinbgoode]

127. I'm sure the children will be shipped off to good Southern Baptist

homes for reindoctrination into the more acceptable religion.

[Disturbed]

164. The top leadership of FLDS are Millionaires.

McClatchy Washington Bureau | 04/13/2008 | Polygamist sect gets ...

Polygamist sect gets millions from U.S. government ... Manufacturing in Las Vegas, has been awarded more than $1.2 million in federal government contracts, ...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/33519.html

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

203. The scary thing is, that actually WOULD be an improvement!

:scared:

[JerseygirlCT]

174. Oh yes. I had the same reaction

Scary, really scary. Like she was drugged or something.

And I agree - I hope those children have escaped and have a chance to heal and move forward in healthy and loving families.

I don't know if it's too late for the women - they've been so thoroughly trained to their physical and emotional abuse it seems to be the only comfortable state for most of them. But perhaps if every one of those abusers was carted off and tossed in prison for a nice long stay, they'd have half a chance of coming through with enough support and therapy.

[Stinky The Clown]

187. Those women were once just like those children

I agree that they're creepy, but for me the worst thing is to think that a bunch of fucked up men brought this down on so many women.

Those creepy women (and they **are** creepy) are actually victims, too.

[drmeow]

200. Religion/culture

Things are ALWAYS messy when issues of religion and/or culture clash with issues of protection of children. This is but one example. FGM is another. Christian Science and medical care is a third.

The removal of children from a home by CPS due to concerns for their safety is not limited to this religious organization. The same action taken by the parent of an individual that does not belong to this church would also result in the child being removed from the home. If CPS removed children from FLDS households due to the marriage of underage girls to older men and did NOT remove children from other households not belonging to that religion who engaged in the same acts, that would be religious persecution. The closest example was the story posted here not to long ago about the man who prostituted his (I believe 13 year old) daughter.

Even within FLDS there are some parents who are more protective of their children than others. Stories from Colorado City suggest that some parents do not force their girls to marry if they do not want to while others do. Part of the problem is that the members of FLDS really believe that Warren Jeffs is God and (while he denies this) he will often order parents to marry their daughters off - and they believe that they will be eternally damned if they don't.

It messy and ugly and creepy and scary. A theocratic dictatorship with extreme indoctrination. I'm amazed that any female ever gets out. I'm also amazed that none of the boys who get kicked out have never gone back to "fight it out" once they are older.

One of the unfortunate flaws of CPS is that the victim is usually the one who is removed from the home (punished) rather than the victimizer. A friend was removed from her home because her brother molested her felt like she was the one being punished. Unfortunately in her case and in this case there is no easy solution.

[Kitty Herder]

202. I know what I'm saying is not politically correct, but here's my story of Mormonism and how women

stay in religions that abuse them. They think they'll go to hell if they leave. I used to be like them in many ways, and I was raised in the "normal", mainstream Mormon church.

It's sad. They believe that God is a woman-hating, child-molesting, polygamous asshole. I know that's what I, as a mainstream Mormon believed, although I justified it to myself and would never have worded it so harshly as I just did here. Imagine how much worse that belief is for FLDS or other polygamous groups.

I used to be like these poor women, captive to a religion that hates women. And I was only a member of the mainstream Mormon relgion, not one of the cults that broke off from it. But the God they worship is the same and the fate of women in the eternities is the same. In Mormonism, when women go to heaven (the Celestial Kingdom) their wonderful reward for a life well-lived is to become a plural wife and be a spirit mother to endless spirit children while the husband they loved in this mortal life gets it on with his hundreds of other wives. It's like the FLDS lifestyle writ large.

I hated it so bad, and was so internally conflicted about it, because I truly believed it. I hated the way women were treated in the Church and mentally rebelled at being denied the "priesthood" that is given to all Mormon men, and at the things I was told I must do as a proper Mormon woman: get married as soon as possible to the first "worthy" return missionary who wanted me and then begin having children immediately. We girls were told by our seminary teachers that if we married while still in college, we were supposed to drop out and have kids. Going to college was just a way to meet your "eternal companion." Most of my friend did just that. They married at nineteen to guys they'd known for about three months, got pregnant and dropped out. Now they're depressed and have to use anti-depressants to cope. Look up the statistics on Mormon women and anti-depressant use.

I absolutely hated the idea of what eternity would be for me as a woman. When I was a teenager, I decided I would rather go to "outer darkness" and told God that. I figured that, in the words of John Milton, "The mind is its own place, and in it self can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven." and that I could make a heaven of that hell. Better that than be an eternal brood mare. Yet still I believed it was true.

It wasn't until I was in my early twenties and came across some of that absolutely forbidden "anti-Mormon" literature (i.e., the true history of Mormonism)online and dared to read it that I was able to realize what a lie it all was and leave it behind for good. I remember I started reading about real Mormon history online in the university computer lab, and stayed there for five hours, missing my classes that day. The next week, I neglected my classes, spending hours in the special collections secion of the library reading about the contradictions in Mormonism, Joe Smith's real history, the origin of the Book of Abraham, etc., etc. (The books that could be perceived as anti-Mormom have to be kept in special collections or they will be defaced by "good" Mormon kids.)
After finding out the truth, I felt lighter, freer, happier and oddly, more in touch with God, than I ever had in my life.

These polygamous women need someone to place some good, credible, "anti-Mormon" literature in their hands. And since many of them can't read, they need someone to read it to them.

[Generator]

221. I know!

And the ones on "Big Love" are so hot. Oh Hollywood!

[iamthebandfanman]

222. if that girl exsisted, shes dead now

with as much influence as they have in the area, itd be easy to make someone disapear and then act like they never exsisted.

just my theory.

[Kitty Herder]

237. Unfortunately, you may be right. Blood atonement, Danites, and all that.

In Southern Utah, the rumor was that "those people still practice blood atonement." I don't know if it's true, but since this cult believes in the doctrines of the early Mormon church, it makes sense.

Here are some explanations of the early Mormon doctrine of "blood atonement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_atonement

http://www.exmormon.org/bloodatn.htm

http://www.mrm.org/topics/salvation/blood-atonement-if-it-was-never-taught-why-do-so-many-mormons-believe-it

[Wizard777]

247. IF that girl existed. It's starting to look like a pretty big IF.

It could have just as easily been a crank call or false complaint. They happen all the time. Especially in the area of child protection.

[Mari3333]

238. here is the actual interview/link/video

http://deseretnews.com/video/1,5563,325,00.html

[cornermouse]

260. I'd feel sorry for them if they weren't

allowing the men to abuse their kids. As it is, I can't, don't, and won't feel sorry for them.